—_T 


+. 
f 
} 





ae Ne iE 
















~ teas -, 2 a — = 
> * — "ae — é ~ 
4 = a = =e ——- 
~~ Rp = 1: ~ Oo = Rs > 
\ < : ~ = = 2 rf . 


N 
Return this book on or before the 
Latest Date stamped below. 


Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books 
are reasons for disciplinary action and may 
result in dismissal from the University. 


University of Illinois Library 





DEC 15 19h: 





THE BARNBURNERS 





THE BARNBURNERS 











A Study of the Internal Movements 
in the Political History of New 
York State and of the Resulting 
Changes in Political Affiliation 
1830—1852 








By 
HERBERT D. A. DONOVAN, PH.D. 


THE NEW YORK UNIVERSITY PRESS 


WASHINGTON SQUARE, NEW YORK CITY 


PEs 





Copyright 1925, by 


New Yorx UNiversiry 


THE NEW YORK UNIVERSITY PRESS 


Argruur Huntineton Nason, Pu.D., Director 


Tuer Kennesrc Journar Press 


Aveousra, Mainz 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 


INTRODUCTION . . Hah a Wie : Merete ss 3 
Complexity of New York State Spades to local peculi- 
arities, conflict of local interests, rivalry of leaders, differences 
of principle. The Barnburner movement—results; purpose 
of studying it. Sources of material. Acknowledgments. 


CuaptTer I. State of Political Parties nha the Period 
of the Barnburners . . . Meroe ae 7 

The Democrats supreme—Albany Regency: its torial mem- 
bership; its accomplishments; its decline. The Whigs—their 
historical position; their doctrines; odium of Federalism; fac- 
tors in their success; in power; leaders. ‘The Anti-Masons. 
The Loco-focos; odium of them cast on the Democrats. The 
Anti-Renters. The Native Americans, The Anti-Slavery 
men. 


CuHaprer II. Political Issues Connected with the New 
POR ORAATIAIS ohio ce bela. atte 14 


Importance of the canal question—its Solita Hatta 
Financial policy adopted in 1827—bad results. Flagg’s 
policy, 1835. Demand for new canals. Wright’s “three 
tests,” in 1827. Unprofitableness of the lateral canals. De- 
mand for the enlargement of the Erie Canal; the project 
agreed on. Whig attitude toward canals. Democrats begin 
to divide on the question. Conservatives vs. Radicals, ‘Their 
leaders. Ruggles’ report. Borrowing policy adopted; its 
results. Demand for retrenchment; Loomis Resolution; dis- 
pute as to its origin. “Stop and Tax” law—efforts to amend 


a it; its success. 

CuaprTer III. Other Issues and Names . . . en PA 
Mga The state banks—charter scandals; wild speculation; ae he | 
ay Marcy’s warning; resentment against him; “small bill” dif_- 

3 culty; Independent Treasury; Tallmadge and the Conserva- 

tives revolt; election of 1837. Election of state officers by 

a the legislature—contest of 1842. Other causes of discord. 
~~ The name “Barnburners”—when first used; why. The 
bis Hunkers, 

“4 
bens 
om, . " 

“orale” ~. 
ex 626349 


vi THE BARNBURNERS 
PAGE 


CHAPTER IV. ‘The First Year of Governor Bouck’s Ad- 


ministration We awn 37) aa ae 

Bouck a harmony candidate; his conservative jee His 
first message; it proves unsatisfactory. Edwin Croswell—his 
ability; his paper; demand that he withdraw as state printer; 
Flage’s attitude; Croswell wins; the A¢/as; result of this fight 
upon Van Buren; upon Wright. Fight over the Book Dis- 
tribution Law. Quarrels over patronage. Demand for con- 
stitutional convention—favored by Radicals, opposed by 
Hunkers. Course pursued by the Whigs in these quarrels. 
The legislative address. Dissensions in the counties. State 
convention. Election of 1843. 


CHAPTER V. Seymour’s Canal Bill and its Results . . 48 
Bouck’s message of 1844. ‘The Denniston report. ‘The Sey- 
mour report. Points of difference. Points of agreement. 
Seymour’s bill; opposition of the Radicals; passage. Bitter- 
ness between the factions; apprehension felt of the effect on 
party success. 


CuHapTer VI. The Campaign OF ESE Eh a ie aye 
Political situation in the spring of 1844—Van Bat ne 
leading Democratic candidate; distrusted by some Radicals; 
rival candidates; the Hammit letter; its influence on the 
South. The Baltimore convention—two-thirds rule adopted; 
withdrawal of Van Buren; nomination of Polk; Wright, 
named for vice-president, declines; resentment aroused in 
New York over the action of the convention. Opposition to 
Bouck’s renomination—Wright drafted for Governor; his 
attitude. Result of the election. 


CuHaprTer VII. Administration of Governor Wright . . 60 
Wright’s character; his affiliation with the Radicals. His 
first message. Contest over the speakership. Hostility of the 
two factions. Attitude of the National Administration— 
Polk’s offer of the Treasury position to Wright; Wright’s 
reply; Van Buren’s suggestions as to the cabinet; Polk’s action, 
and its effect on Van Buren. Contest for United States sen- 
ators—trival candidates; stormy caucus; election of Dix and 
Dickinson. Hunkers capture the state officers—object of this. 
Appropriation for canal work vetoed by Governor Wright. 
Attempt to amend the constitution—shrewd tactics of John 
Young; Governor Wright signs the bill for convention. Fail- 
ure of the Democrats to issue a party address; address issued 


TABLE OF CONTENTS Vii 


. PAGE 
by the Radicals. Constitutional Convention. Election of 
1845—-Radical gains. Contest in the legislature of 1846— 

Jones resolutions; show Free-Soil sentiment; attempt to re- 

move Croswell from state printership; his clever strategy. 


Cuaprer VIII. The Overthrow of Silas Wright . . . 74 


Renomination of Governor Wright; objections to it; what 
he had to contend against; apprehensions before election. 
Results of the election. Discussion over the causes of his 
defeat—Wright’s own views; views of his friends; of Marcy; 
the Az/as articles; feeling produced by them; quarrel over 
their publications; defense offered by the Hunkers; who was 
at fault; death of Wright; determination of his former fol- 
lowers to avenge him. 


CMAPTER io) 7) Phe Radicals, and: Free; Soil)... 4 2h 84 
The Wilmot Proviso—different views taken of it; Preston 
King’s bill and speech; Strong’s speech; the Secret Circular 
of 1844; action of the New York legislature and of Demo- 
cratic conventions on King’s stand; Martin Van Buren shows 
leanings toward Free-Soil doctrines—surprise at this; true 
explanation of it; its influence upon the Radicals. Orthodoxy 
of the Radicals upon other issues. 


CHAPTER X. Secession of the Radicals, Now Called Barn- 


DULG Rs me ae es Vai a cielo Bae ON Ne 
Topics of controversy in Democratic ranks. Croswell-Cassidy 
libel case—arguments of John Van Buren and of Rufus Peck- 
ham. Decline in Radical control of party machinery. Plans 
of the Hunkers—‘“‘new men” agitation. State convention of 
1847—contesting delegations; Field resolutions; new state 
ticket; secession of the Radicals. Herkimer mass-convention 
—against wishes of Martin Van Buren and of Flagg; spirit 
shown; two acts to which the Radicals objected; Free-Soil 
resolutions; Radicals become Barnburners; utter destruction 
of Democratic supremacy. 


er eae hherCampaion oft S48) au in hay OS 


Preparations of both sides for national recognition—the 
Hunker delegation; the Utica convention of February 16th; 
its resolutions; attention attracted. Address of the Barn- 
burner members of the legislature—impolitic tone. Balti- 
more convention—its attempt to impose a test; Barnburners 
reject the test; Van Buren’s advice to the Barnburner dele- 


Vili 


THE BARNBURNERS 


gation; no chance to apply it; Hunkers accept the test; the 
convention hears both sides; offer of a compromise; Barn- 
burners withdraw; make charges against the Hunkers; nomi- 
nation of Cass. City Hall Park mass-meeting; call for a 
convention. Second Utica convention. Sensation produced 
by the nomination of Van Buren for president. Encourage- 
ment given the new movement—call for a national conven- 
tion; the Buffalo convention; its spirit; its membership; its 
leaders; its candidates. State ticket named. The campaign 
—Polk removes Barnburner office-holders; effect of this. 
Result of the election—in the country; in New York State. 


CHAPTER XII. The End of the Barnburner Movement . 


Feeling of the Barnburners after the election of 1848. 
Necessity of fusion. Were the Barnburners moved by prin- 
ciple or personality? —opinions of critics; course of the Van 
Burens; two sincere classes of Barnburners. Conventions of 
1849—unsatisfactory result of the fusion. Course adopted 
in 1850, 751, 752. Barnburners and Republicans. What the 
Barnburners contributed to the Republicans. Great extent of 
their transference of allegiance. 


CoNCLUSIONS 


Barnburners’ movement caused by a real difference of prin- 
ciples. They were the “Progressives” of their day. Their 
dependence on Martin Van Buren was not fundamental. 
Their partial failure due to their being ahead of their times, 
and lacking shrewdest leaders. Their movement had great 
political results. 


APPENDIX I. Division of Democratic Members of the 


Legislature in the Senatorial Nominating 


Caucus 1845) vce en, alae 


APPENDIX II. Factional Affiliation of Democratic News- 


APPENDIX III. 


papers in New York State, 1846-48 


APPENDIX IV. Localization of Barnburner voting strength, 


1848° (Map) 0000 6 oa. Do precedennem 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


INDEX e ° e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 


PAGE 


110 


119 


123 


124 


State Convention, 1847 (Map) To follow 126 


127 
135 





st na Pit f 
if he) : : 


t wh Xs 2 





INTRODUCTION 


HE complexity of New York State politics during its 
whole history has been often a matter of comment. Par- 
ticularly during the first half of the nineteenth century 
it was the despair of the most competent observers. William 
Allen Butler, writing in 1862, declared that it had “always been 
a vast deep,’’* and his judgment was echoed by other excellent 
critics. Horace Greeley, who, by virtue of long experience no 
less than active personal interest, should certainly have been able 
to elucidate the subject, complained of “the zigzag, wavering lines 
and uncouth political designations which puzzled and wearied 
readers.”” The shrewdest politicians from other parts of the union, 
anxious as they were to conciliate a state which was by its very 
size a vital factor in the decision of all political questions, were 
compelled to admit that the currents and counter-currents at work 
here could not be accurately or reliably gauged. President John 
Quincy Adams pleaded this lack of comprehension in excuse of 
some unpopular nominations,*® and Oliver Wolcott wrote: “I don’t 
pretend to comprehend their politics. It is a labyrinth of wheels 
within wheels, and it is understood only’ by the managers.’ 
The causes of this complexity were in part general, but in part 
due to peculiar conditions in the state. The large growth of popu- 
lation, which early made New York the “Empire State,” at the 
same time increased the opportunity of factionists and “cranks” 
to thrive within her boundaries. New York was the original home 
of the Mormons, the Anti-Masons, the Spiritualists; and its promi- 
nence in the movements for abolition, communism, and other 
social novelties, was an indication of a vigorous originality that 
also manifested itself politically. 
Another cause was the conflict of local interests due to the in- 
dustrial differentiation of various sections of the state, which finally 


1 Butler, Wm. A., Martin Van Buren, York, preface. 

19. Setter of Silas Wright, Dec. 20, 
? Quoted in Alexander, DeAlva S., 1827; in Flagg Mss. 

Political History of the State of New “Alexander, uz supra, preface. 


4 THE BARNBURNERS 


set the agricultural “up-State” against the commercial metropolis 
and started that jealousy which, though often slumbering, has 
never since died out. Perhaps the most striking example of such 
a cause was the great canal question which for a half-century 
was easily the weightiest and most agitated political issue in the 
state. A recent historian of the canals says: “New York State 
canals have made much history. . . . For many years their mone- 
tary struggles dictated the financial policy of the state. “They 
precipitated the calling of at least one convention for constitutional 
revision, and have occupied a large place in the deliberations of 
the others. They have occasioned the rise and fall of statesmen, 
and have often dominated the policies of political parties.”’ The 
part of the state most vitally interested in the canals and therefore 
most eager for their extension was the row of counties along the 
route of the original Erie Canal; and they, could generally rely 
upon the support of the Hudson River counties and of New York 
City.° On the other hand, the counties of the southern tier and 
of the north were usually adverse and often bitterly hostile to 
the plans of the enthusiastic canal men. 

Such differences were often seized upon by shrewd leaders and 
used with more or less sincerity as levers to lift themselves into 
office and to promote the views and interests of their friends. 
Such men as DeWitt Clinton, Martin Van Buren, Thurlow Weed, 
Millard Fillmore, and William H. Seward owed much of their 
national prominence to their skill in thus seizing upon the local 
differences in New York State and molding its public sentiment 
to their own advancement. The rivalries of Granger and Seward 
among the Whigs, and of Van Buren and Marcy among the 
Democrats, took advantage of every local incident and personal 
peculiarity to tip the scale for or against the rival leaders. 

Lastly, the different interpretation of new principles by different 
individuals and their reaction upon different classes in the state 
eventually produced in New York, as elsewhere, a breaking up of 
the traditional party groups which in turn led to new alignments 
and combinations that at first seemed difficult to understand. ‘The 


Whitford, Noble E., History of the opposed. See ibid., 82, 84. 
Canal System of New York, introduction. 
*But the city at first was strongly 


INTRODUCTION 5 


steady development of the political power of the Abolitionists is 
perhaps the most notable instance of this. 

Between 1840 and 1850, there occurred an internal conflict in 
the Democratic party of New York, so serious that it rent the 
party in twain and drove it from the place of power it had held 
for so many years. ‘This schism eventually resulted in the perma- 
nent alienation from the party of many of its best and most 
competent men, and contributed very materially to the realign- 
ment of parties that has since prevailed. ‘The schism has com- 
monly been known as the “Barnburner movement,” and has been 
treated as being mainly an adjunct to the plans and policies of 
certain party leaders of that day. It was the most bitter and 
prolonged of the many stirring contests that enlivened the politics 
of New York State during the second quarter of the nineteenth 
century, a period when, perhaps more than at any time before or 
since, the energies of the average American were engaged in 
politics; and the results that I have indicated could hardly have 
followed from causes so trivial as those often alleged. 

In the following essay, I have undertaken to examine this sub- 
ject with a view to determining if possible, first, to what degree 
the contest was one of principle and to what degree one of per- 
sonality; and, secondly, whether its political results were a leading 
or only a subsidiary factor in the great changes that soon followed; 
in short, whether the rise and fall of the “‘Barnburners” deserve 
to be accorded a higher importance than they have hitherto been 
granted in American political history. 

The material for my work has been obtained largely from 
sources not hitherto used in this connection, although similar sub- 
jects in the same general field of politics, or individual actors in 
the movement, have been investigated. 

I have visited many places where the Barnburners exerted their 
greatest influence and have thus obtained, I believe, an appreciation 
of the atmosphere of their times, so different from our own. In 
the libraries, historical societies, and older newspaper offices of 
Buffalo, Batavia, Rochester, Albion, Canandaigua, Utica, Herk- 
imer, Clinton, Rome, and Watertown, I have searched with con- 
siderable success for material to supplement that used by those 
who have previously given us brief accounts of the Barnburners. 


6 THE BARNBURNERS 


The data thus obtained have been compared with and added to 
those available in the libraries of Washington, New York, and 
Albany, which I had already used. In the homes and from the 
families of several of the leaders, such as Dean Richmond, Addi- 
son Gardiner, Sanford E. Church, and Albert H. Tracy, I have 
also sought assistance in the form of access to manuscripts, etc.; 
but, while I was received in all cases with courtesy, I found 
little new material from those sources. I also found that the 
files of newspapers published in the smaller towns are wofully 
deficient and in imminent danger of becoming steadily more so, 
which necessarily cuts off an important, if not wholly reliable, 
source of information. 

I desire especially to acknowledge helpful assistance and encour- 
agement obtained from Mr. Victor H. Paltsits of the New York 
Public Library; Mr. Frank H. Severance of the Buffalo Historical 
Society, and his courteous librarian, Mrs. Andrews; Mr. E. P. 
Foreman, president, and Mr. E. D. Putnam, curator, of the 
Rochester Historical Society; Miss Mildred Long, assistant libra- 
rian of the Oneida Historical Society, Utica; former Judge C. D. 
Adams of Utica, of whose unique aid I have spoken elsewhere; 
Mr. Romeyn Smith of Watertown; and Mr. Adams of the State 
Law Library, Albany. I am indebted in an especial degree to 
Professor Arthur H. Nason, director of the New York University 
Press, whose careful and scholarly oversight of the form and 
style of the whole monograph has led to numerous improvements 
in those particulars. ‘To all others who have assisted in any way 
in the preparation of the work I extend thanks. 


CHAPTER I 


STATE OF POLITICAL PARTIES DURING THE 
PERIOD OF THE BARNBURNERS 


HE opening of the fourth decade of the nineteenth 

century found the Democracy of New York united, 
intrenched in power, and seemingly invincible. All the 

offices of the state were in its hands; and its erstwhile opponents 
had lost not only power, but almost respectability. The banner 
of the victorious Jacksonians floated over every citadel of political 
importance; and, under the rising demand. for popular rights, 
every remnant of aristocratic influence seemed likely to disappear. 
The active management of the successful party was held in 
the capable hands of that extraordinary group of seasoned politi- 
cians known to posterity, as well as to their contemporaries, as the 
Albany Regency. ‘This body, formed originally during the post- 
bellum period when everyone was professing allegiance to the 
party of Monroe, had consisted at first of William L. Marcy, 
Samuel A. Talcott, Benjamin F. Butler, Martin Van Buren, 
Azariah C, Flagg, Edwin Croswell, Silas Wright, and some others. 
They were all men of keen intellect, political imagination, shrewd 
practical sense, and untiring energy; men, too, of undoubted in- 
‘tegrity, honest in public as well as in private life. They did not, 
however, disdain the work of practical politics; as a high-minded 
apologist says, ““They had sense enough to know that, when they 
were in power, they could be served better in places of trust by 
their friends than by their enemies . . . and they acted accord- 
ingly.”* ‘They were among the first to practice and perfect many 
of the political devices that became the commonplaces of the next 
generation. ‘The legislative caucus—not for nominating, but for 
binding a too lax majority—the official newspaper as an expounder 
of doctrine they wished to be believed, and, as above stated, the 
unconcealed use of patronage as a mighty argument for regu- 


* Butler, Martin Van Buren, 28-29. 


8 THE BARNBURNERS 


larity, were peculiarly their work. Yet, in a broader sense, they 
conceived their dominant position as affording them a unique oppor- 
tunity to serve the state through mastery. 

But with the very attainment of their objects began their decline. 
As soon as they were able to place their members in national posts, 
it was inevitable that the men thus honored should be less tightly 
bound by the interests that had made them great. A United States 
senator, in those days of laggard communication, soon got out of 
touch with many of the districts and men that, as a state official, 
he would have had to see or hear from frequently. The very 
advance of time, too, cooled the ardor and impeded the activity 
of those who in their youth had been the leaders in the fray. 
Some attained judgeships, and felt perhaps unconsciously the re- 
straint imposed by such dignities. Younger men, ambitious in their 
turn, chafed at the domination of the older leaders, believing it 
to be the result of selfishness. ‘The dispensing of patronage pro- 
duced its usual result of alienating the disappointed office-seekers, 
whose number was constantly increasing. Moreover, according to 
a friendly critic who discussed the subject some years later, “long 
and arbitrary use of power had driven into the ranks of the opposi- 
tion any neutral body that might have replaced seceders.”* For 
all these perfectly natural reasons, the mighty Regency began to 
dwindle in men’s estimation, and to be, first, less feared, and then 
less respected. 

The opposition party was the Whig. This party, which grew 
out of the loose assemblage of the anti-Jackson men in 1828, 
gradually gained strength by drawing to itself all the disaffected 
elements opposed to Jacksonian principles and practices, and by 
developing a philosophy and a set of principles that appealed to 
considerable fractions of the people other than disappointed office- 
seckers. 

By their name and the circumstances of their first rallying, the 
Whigs loudly proclaimed themselves the opponents of autocracy 
in government, and champions of the prerogatives of the legisla- 
ture against the domination of ambitious executives. In the state 
of New York, lacking an overshadowing personality such as Jack- 


*See Dewmsocratic Review, XXV, 487; probably by the editor, Thomas Prentice 
Kettell. 


STATE OF POLITICAL PARTIES 2) 


son’s to attack, they fulminated against the power of the Regency, 
which, they averred, was but a hydra-headed monster moved, never- 
theless, by a single will, and none the less odious because seemingly 
divided. 

The more Jackson showed himself to be hostile to their pet 
projects, one after the other, the more boldly the Whigs espoused 
them. They took their stand upon the American system of Henry 
Clay—a national bank, protective tariff, internal improvements at 
federal expense, and the broader exercise by Congress of what- 
ever powers it deemed necessary to the general welfare. 

This last attitude in particular inspired their opponents to charge 
that the Whigs were but the old-time Federalists masquerading 
under another name to avoid the obloquy that would else be theirs; 
for Federalism, never very strong in New York, had finally be- 
come most unpopular. So, during the whole of the Jacksonian 
epoch, the Administration papers persistently dubbed their oppo- 
nents “old Federals,’ and spoke of ‘Federal meetings,” and 
“Federal sheets”; while the Whigs as stubbornly resisted the 
charge and advertised meetings of “Young Whig Republicans.” 

The death of De Witt Clinton left a vacancy in the guberna- 
torial office, which was temporarily filled by the lieutenant-governor, 
Nathaniel Pitcher. At the next election, he was displaced by the 
Regency in favor of Enos ‘T. Throop, who had won some favor 
with the Anti-Masons. ‘Throop, in turn, not appealing to the 
astute politicians at Albany as a source of strength to their plans, 
was made to give way to William L. Marcy. Marcy was a sunny, 
broad-minded, practical man, the elasticity of whose principles in 
political exigencies was often demonstrated. His “hunkering” 
after the rewards of office had already been coined into a memo- 
rable phrase—‘“To the victor belong the spoils of the enemy’— 
and was destined again to give a picturesque if not wholly accurate 
name to his associates—the “Hunkers.” | 

During Marcy’s lengthy incumbency of the office of governor, 
the strength of the “National Republicans” steadily grew in the 
state; for, with the tactical advantage of a minority, they seized 
upon every mistake and misfortune of their opponents, and used 
national as well as state issues to serve their ends. This was a 
period of unbridled speculation in Western lands, which was en- 


10 THE BARNBURNERS 


couraged and played upon by many of the state banks to such an 
extent that the federal government felt obliged to restrict the 
credit facilities of those small institutions. When the measures 
thus taken were followed by widespread distress, the Whigs re- 
ceived a golden opportunity to capitalize discontent into votes. 
‘They pointed out that the Jacksonians were entirely responsible for 
the obnoxious measures; and they speedily drew to themselves most 
of the friends of the small banks, and others who had suffered 
from the sudden stoppage of the Western land development. 
These people came to be called “Conservatives.” 

With this accession of strength, the Whigs gained an over- 
whelming victory in the legislative elections of 1837, a victory 
that, like the Panic, seems to have been all the more overwhelming 
because unforeseen. Flagg, who had barely scented some evidences 
of the impending crash,* wrote to Van Buren on November 5th: 
““We have been beaten in all directions, much after the manner 
of 1824. ‘There have been in most of the counties dissensions 
among our friends in regard to banks, currency, etc., which have 
enabled the Whigs to walk over the course... . ”* He and his 
allies felt that the overthrow partook even somewhat of the nature 
of a disgrace. It soon became evident that the consequences of 
the national crisis were so serious that it would be difficult for 
any of those connected with the party to justify themselves to 
their constituents; and accordingly the campaign of 1838 resulted 
in a rout. The victorious Whigs placed the brilliant Seward in 
the governor’s seat for which he had long striven, and gave him 
a friendly Assembly to assist him. ‘To this, the next year, they 
added the Senate, by capturing the Albany district. “The year 
following, they were able to hold their vantage, but by only a 
small margin, even with the aid of a sensational national cam- 
paign. Seward’s majority of ten thousand in 1838 was cut in 
half, and the Whig majority in the Assembly dropped to four. 

This demonstrated, if any demonstration were needed, that New 
York was a Democratic state. It required all the ingenuity of 
some extraordinary leaders to maintain the Whigs on something 
like even terms. Foremost among these leaders was that arche- 


® Letter to Van Buren, from Albany, Ibid. 
Nov. 5, 1837; Van Buren Mss., XXX. 


STATE OF POLITICAL PARTIES 11 


type of a party boss, the hard-hitting yet subtle and persuasive 
editor, Thurlow Weed, personal friend but political rival of 
the redoubtable Croswell. Beside him stood the less worldly yet 
more eloquent Greeley, whose pen was just beginning its magic 
sway over the American public. Before these two in the public 
battle, though less potent than Weed in the party councils, were 
the magnetic Seward and the courtly Francis Granger. Around 
them clustered a large number of clever politicians, one of whom 
was to lead his party to victory a few years later by the policy of 
“divide and conquer,” and to become himself the governor, John 
Young. 

Such was the situation of the Whigs; but for a time the Demo- 
crats believed their most redoubtable rivals to be, not the Whigs, 
but the new passion-born party of the Anti-Masons. ‘The Demo- 
cratic organs of the early thirties breathe scarcely a fear of the 
Whigs, while they are replete with sarcastic gibes, bitter accusa- 
tions, and fearful prophecies, concerning these new masters of 
the western half of the state. The eighth senatorial district, 
embracing the country west of the Finger Lakes, became widely 
known as the “infected district,” because of the anti-Masonic 
contagion therein; and it was not until after 1834 that the sway 
of the Anti-Masons there was really broken. ‘The mediocrity 
of most of their leaders, the satisfying of their demands to some 
extent,” but, above all, the emergence of greater issues, finally 
disrupted their party; and thereupon the great bulk of its member- 
ship followed Weed, its best organizer, into the Whig ranks. 

Another element, which for a few years attracted considerable 
attention and reduced the ordinary Democratic strength in the 
state, was the Equal Rights Party, whose members were commonly 
called, from a well-known incident that occurred during their 
formation, the Loco-focos. ‘This party was practically confined 
to New York City, and its activities extended over a compara- 
tively short period. It made its fight against the granting of any 
monopoly, especially of a banking nature; and, during the term 
of its existence, it fought vigorously the domination of Tammany 
Hall in city politics. The Loco-focos were extremists of the 


* Hammond, Jabez D., Political His- 
tory of New York, II, 440. 


12 THE BARNBURNERS 


Democracy; hence, they received no sympathy from the Whigs, 
whose only interest in them lay in the possibility of their weaken- 
ing the regular Democracy sufficiently to place it in the minority. 
Indeed, the aversion felt for the rebels is reflected in the persistent 
attempts made by the Whigs to stigmatize the entire Democracy 
with Loco-focoism, hoping thus to render it obnoxious to moderate 
men. For some years, the Whig journals harped upon the Loco- 
foco spirit of the Democrats, and condemned every reforming 
measure proposed as savoring of Loco-foco heresy and revealing 
the danger of entrusting valuable rights and property to the con- 
trol of such fanatics. ‘That this method of attack was sufficiently 
effective to become a sore point with the Democrats, may be 
judged from the admission of the Democratic Review that, in one 
campaign, ‘“‘a use was made of the unfortunate word ‘Loco-foco’ 
. . . alone sufficient to frighten fifty thousand very worthy and 
honest people from the ballot boxes.”*® Finally, the term was 
inaccurately applied to the very subjects of our study, as is indi- 
cated by the reference of a Whig memoirist to “that portion of 
the Democratic party in this State which was known as Loco-focos 
or Barnburners,”’ thus attempting to stigmatize their radicalism. 

As short-lived as the Loco-focos, but much more powerful, were 
the Anti-Renters. The Anti-Rent party, as is well known, grew 
out of the discontent roused by the survival of old manorial rights 
in the “patroonships” along the Hudson. A concise account of 
the activities of the rebellious tenants, which finally led to their 
being placed in the position of outlaws and to their resorting to 
political action for relief, was contained in Governor Wright’s 
message to the legislature of 1845. The Anti-Renters controlled 
the votes of about ten counties, being strongest in Schoharie, Dela- 
ware, and Columbia, and had the balance of power for two years. 

At intervals, but principally in 1834 and 1844, came outbreaks 
of that semi-social, semi-political proscribing feeling that in those 
years gave unusual power to the “‘Native American” party. This 
coterie confined itself chiefly to New York City, and there it 
succeeded in electing, in the spring of 1844, its city ticket as 
against both Democrats and Whigs. Its support, however, was 


© Democratic Review, I; Jan., 1838. Buffalo Historical Society, IV. 
7 John Hubbell, in Publications of the 


STATE OF POLITICAL PARTIES 13 


mostly emotional; and its followers, like the others of these minor 
organizations, presently fell back into the ranks that they had 
left to join it. 

Last, but in the light of later events far from least, of the 
confusing elements of that confusing period, was the small but 
growing faction of the Anti-slavery men. Confined at first to 
the radical Abolitionists, these innovators gradually and almost 
unobserved gained strength from year to year, as some new event 
would focus the attention of the country upon what was deemed 
the ever-widening ambition and arrogance of the Southern leaders. 
The struggle over the right of petition found reflection in New 
York State political circles; and New York congressmen followed 
John Quincy Adams in the campaign he made to assert the right 
of all people to discuss “the peculiar institution.” Abolition soci- 
eties sprung up; the circulation of The Liberator increased; and, 
as a natural consequence, the number of those who sought to 
promote abolition by political action grew larger and larger. 
Scattered through the evenly-balanced townships of central New 
York, such men made their presence known to experienced politi- 
cal wiseacres by voting, whenever an occasion presented itself, for 
whichever candidate seemed most favorable to the restriction of 


slavery. 


CHAPTER? ft 


POLITICAL ISSUES CONNECTED WITH THE NEW 
YORK CANALS 


there were introduced during the fourth decade new and 
fruitful causes of discord which were destined within a brief 
time to bear fruit in the revolt of the Barnburners. - 

As has been intimated above, the most vital and delicate ques- 
tion in state politics at that time, the one affecting the most people 
through their financial interest or their state pride, was the ques- 
tion, What shall be done with the canals? With the triumph 
of De Witt Clinton and the opening of the great work started 
by him, it became settled not only that New York was to have 
a canal system, but that it was to rely upon that system as the 
bulwark of its agricultural development, its commercial prospects, 
and even its financial resources. Van Buren had “seen the light” 
as early as 1818;* and, in 1825, had composed his long feud with 
Clinton and thus made himself safe. Into every phase of the 
people’s life, the influence of the canals penetrated. Cities and 
villages started or thrived by virtue of the canal trade, even to 
such an extent that it was seriously debated whether it would not 
be well to limit them. Population shifted to meet the demands 
of the new commerce. ‘The work of completing the canals furn- 
ished employment to multitudes of men whose interests were 
identical with those of the contractors in seeing their employment 
continued. ‘The supervision of the canals required a considerable 
force of public employes directed by a powerful Canal Com- 
mission, which, with its servants, constituted a weighty element 
in state politics. 

Above all these considerations, yet governed by them, was the 
question of the proper policy of the state in financing the con- 
struction of the canals and in expending the money derived from 


|e: the medley of parties described in the previous chapter, 


1 Whitford, 82. 


NEW YORK CANALS 15 


them in tolls. Ata very early period, it became evident that the 
income from this source would exceed even the sanguine predic- 
tions of the most ardent Clintonians; and in 1827 the legislature 
suspended entirely the imposition of a direct tax, and, for the 
succeeding fifteen years, the ordinary and extraordinary expenses 
of the state were paid out of the surplus revenues of the canal 
fund.* As Whitford remarks, ‘The people had begun to think 
that taxes need never again be imposed, for the waterways were 
looked upon as a veritable treasure-house for supplying funds.’”* 
The financial authorities of the state, the men who observed most 
directly the effects of the no-tax policy, did not share this view. 
They saw the general fund, which consisted of “bonds and mort- 
gages for lands sold, and for loans to individuals and others,’* 
dwindle from $4,396,932.97 in 1814, when there had been a 
tax of two mills on the dollar of valuation of real and personal 
property, to $190,596.62 in 1834, when there was no tax at all. 
William L. Marcy was comptroller when the no-tax policy was 
adopted in 1827, and he opposed it then. Later, when he became 
governor, he reiterated from year to year the dangers of that 
policy, but his warnings fell on deaf ears. 

In 1835, the situation seemed to have reached a climax. ‘The 
Governor explained that the state was then facing either a loan, 
which was objectionable, or a direct tax for general expenses. It 
remained, however, for the clear-sighted and high-principled comp- 
troller of that year, Azariah C. Flagg, to: put into concrete and 
inescapable form the necessities of the case. It was he who at 
this time outlined and urged the financial policy which, in its 
application later, became the bone of contention not only between 
the Democrats and Whigs, but between two almost equally- 
balanced sections of the Democrats themselves. 


The Comptroller said: 


The annual reports from this office for the last nine years have urged 
upon the consideration of the representatives of the people the necessity 
of a state tax, to enable the treasury to meet the ordinary expenses of 
the government, and to save the general fund from annihilation. The 


? Governor’s Message, 1833; quoted in *Comptroller’s Report, 1835, in N. Y. 
Whitford, I, 137-138. Assembly Documents for 1835, No. 5. 


8 7bid., I, 140. 


16 THE BARNBURNERS 


acts of the legislature, instead of favoring the policy of preserving the 
principal of the general fund, have indicated a settled determination 
to use it up for the current expenses of the treasury, and not to levy 
a tax, so long as there remained a remnant of that fund.... The 
alternative is now presented, whether a light tax shall be levied, or a 
state debt created, for supplying the treasury with the means of paying 
the daily demands upon it. A decision of the question cannot be post- 
poned any longer. It is necessary for the preservation of a sound 
financial system, that a tax should be levied, of at least one mill upon 
the dollar of the valuation of real and personal estate. If the treasury 
is not ‘relieved by a tax, there will be a debt against the treasury of at 
least $1,500,000 by the close of 1837. In addition to this, there will 
be a debt on account of the lateral canals of at least $3,000,000. ... 
In authorizing money to be borrowed and stock to be issued for the 
construction of the lateral canals, the salutary principle adopted (in 
1817) has not been adhered to. ... It is a wise rule ... never to 
borrow a dollar without laying a tax in the same instant for paying the 
interest annually, and the principal within a given term, and to consider 
that tax as pledged to the creditors on the public faith.” 


In this last sentence, the sentiment of which he attributed to 
Thomas Jefferson, Flagg struck the keynote which he and his 
followers ever afterward unflinchingly maintained. 

During the same period, and in a closely related field, that of 
canal extension, a policy was also marked out that could not be 
acceptable to all. “The marvellous success of the Erie and Champ- 
lain Canals roused a spirit of emulation, even of envy, throughout 
the state. From every section requests poured in upon the legis- 
lature to authorize the building of canals, upon the public credit. 
We hear of an assemblyman being chosen in St. Lawrence county, 
on the promise that he would work to get a canal built connecting 
the St. Lawrence River with Lake Champlain, over the Adirondack 
divide! ‘This gentleman’s public career was brief, owing to the 
perversity of geography. Ina single year, no fewer than seventy- 
three routes for canals within the state were suggested, and seven- 
teen were authorized to be surveyed. One of the most talked-of 
routes was the “Genesee Valley” route, which was to connect the 
Erie Canal with the headwaters of the Alleghany River. When 
a numerously-signed petition, known as the Evans petition, reached 


® Comptroller’s Report, 1835, in N. Y. 
Assembly Documents for 1835, No. 5. 


NEW YORK CANALS 17 


the legislature of 1827, praying for the authorization of that 
route, the Senate referred the petition to a committee, of which 
Silas Wright was chairman; and this committee made an ex- 
haustive report.° Mr. Wright laid down three tests as conditions 
to be fulfilled before the state should lend its sanction to any 
new canal: “First, the practicability of making a canal upon the 
route proposed, and of obtaining a supply of water sufficient for 
its use. Second, the ability of the state to sustain the expense, 
or the resources from which the work is to be carried on. Third, 
the importance of the work, and the promise of its utility, and 
consequent income, to reimburse the treasury for the expense of 
making it.” “These principles,’ says Hammond, “were then 
novel, and were repudiated by a large and intelligent portion of 
the community,”’ presumably that portion directly interested in 
some of the multifarious canal schemes. Nevertheless, the Chenan- 
go Canal bill, authorizing a project similar to that of the Evans 
petition, was rejected by the Senate, 14 to 10, after Francis 
Granger had forced it through the Assembly. From this report 
of Wright’s, and from its consequences, undoubtedly started some 
of the opposition to him which was usually kept concealed and 
which never had an apt opportunity to display itself until nearly 
twenty years afterward. 

Here, then, we see outlined the two principal issues arising out 
of the canal situation as it then existed, one having reference to 
the application of the money, the other to the extension of the 
canal system. ‘The latter attracted the greater degree of popular 
attention. In 1825, work was begun on the Oswego Canal and 
also on the Cayuga and Seneca Canal. In 1830, the Chemung, 
in 1831, the Crooked Lake, and in 1833, the Chenango, were 
started.* These local projects gratified the pride and doubtless 
contributed to the convenience and helped the trade of their im- 
mediate neighborhoods; but, from the standpoint of the state, 
they were costly experiments as weil as glaring manifestations of 
the inexperience and poor judgment of their promoters and officials. 
Thus, the committee of the legislature which reported the law 
for the construction of the Chemung Canal estimated the annual 


°N. Y. Senate Journal, 1827, 170. ® Hepburn, A. Barton, Artificial Water- 
7 Hammond, III, 89-90. ways, 57. 


18 THE BARNBURNERS 


tolls at $18,288.44; the Canal Commissioners thought that they 
might be $5,599.00; in 1834, they were actually $3,079.69.° 
“The Oswego canal . . . has, notwithstanding its peculiar ad- 
vantages and a small auxiliary revenue from land sales, been a 
constant drain upon the treasury, averaging about $14,000, for 
each of the five years it has been in operation.”*° And similar 
illustrations might be cited of every one of these “Jateral canals.” 

While the western section of the state was clamoring for more 
canals, a strong demand was growing up for a ship canal con- 
necting Lake Ontario with the Hudson River. It was said’ that 
the enlargement of the Erie Canal would only keep pace with 
the increase of business and would not accommodate new business. 
‘The Common Council of New York City and the Utica Chamber 
of Commerce supported the new plan. ‘The agitation became so 
strong that the legislature referred the whole question to the 
Canal Board, for its decision. “The Board replied that, in its 
opinion, the ship canal scheme was not feasible, but, yielding to 
the sentiment of the eighth senatorial district, recommended en- 
largement of the Erie. ‘The cry had been for a canal “sixty by 
six,” that is, having a surface width of sixty feet and a depth of 
six feet. ‘The Surveyor-General, after some incomplete calcula- 
tions, had estimated the cost of this at $12,516,000. ‘The Board 
yielded to the outcry for enlargement by recommending dimensions 
of seventy feet by seven, a change of basis which upset even the 
hasty figures of the Surveyor-General, and left the probable out- 
lay very uncertain. ‘This unexpected change was one cause of 
the recriminations later bandied back and forth between the ae 
as to the extravagance of the work. 

The next year, 1837, in reply to a request from the ieee 
the Canal Board said that it would be for the interest of the state 
to hasten the enlargement of the Erie; but the Board would not 
approve of new loans, and would not estimate the cost. Nothing 
therefore was done. The state debt due to canals in 1837 was 
only about $200,000 more than it had been twelve years before, 
when the Erie and Champlain Canals had been completed, although 
in the meantime 165 miles of lateral canals had been built.” 


* Comptroller’s Report, 1835, 23. 1 Davis, Speech in the Assembly, Feb. 
% Tbid., 24. 9-11, 1843. ” Ibid. 


NEW YORK CANALS 19 


Meanwhile, on May 6, 1836, the legislature passed an act pro- 
viding for the Genesee Valley Canal. In June, 1837, the first 
Genesee Valley contracts were let; and 52 miles of this canal 
were finished before measures were taken that stopped all canal 
work, as we shall see later..* ‘The Black River Canal also was 
authorized by the legislature of 1836. This concluded the series | 
of positive measures for canal construction, during Democratic © 
ascendency. 

Some of these measures were undoubtedly thought to be specu- 
lative; but the enlargement of the Erie Canal was not so con- 
sidered. Whitford says: “The improvement of the canal was 
generally conceded to be a necessity, but opinions widely differed 
concerning the proper policy to pursue.”** Governor Marcy had 
written in his message of 1834: “If our canals are to be what 
a wise management cannot fail to make them—the principal 
channels for this [western] trade—we must calculate its extent, 
and make them adequate to its object.”** ‘The Whigs later 
asserted that such utterances as this of Marcy, and the canal laws 
to which he referred proved the Democrats’ responsibility for the 
‘wild and reckless expenditure” that ensued. "They—the Whigs— 
“had done nothing but execute the mad projects which were on 
foot when they came into power.’*® But both Marcy and the 
Canal Board had specifically deprecated “such an expenditure of 
money upon this work as will interfere with the arrangements 
now in progress for accumulating a sum sufficient to pay the 
Erie and Champlain canal debt,’*" and had urged a sound method 
of financing the improvement. 

Thus, it will be seen, the steadily rising tide of enthusiasm for 
internal improvements afforded ample ground for serious differ- 
ences of opinion as to the ways and means of executing such works. 
The increasing cost of maintaining the state government made it 
difficult to preserve the balance between economy and progress. 
Conflicting impulses on the subject of expenditures for canals re- 
sulted, impulses that grew stronger each year of Governor Marcy’s 
incumbency. Eventually they began to open a rift in the hitherto 
solid lines of the majority party. Those who believed in a rather 

%whitford, 712. % Davis, uf supra. 


4 Thid., 142. ™ )bid. 
% Tbid., 134. 


20 THE BARNBURNERS 


liberal policy of pledging the state’s credit and resources to the 
extension and completion of the canal system at an early date 
began to be called “Conservatives.” Those, on the other hand, 
who favored the new policy of limiting the canal expenditures 
to the amount available from the surplus revenue of those canals, 
received the designation “Radicals.” It is by these names that 
the two groups are always referred to in the early days of their 
strife. 

The first leaders of the Conservatives included Henry A. 
Foster, Samuel Beardsley, Edwin Croswell, and William C. Bouck. 
Foster and Beardsley were veteran members of the legislature,** 
residents of canal counties, and presumably much influenced by 
the local sentiment of their home districts, which had experienced 
to the full the benefits of the public works. Croswell we have 
already seen as the brainy and resourceful editor of the Argus, 
which was the recognized organ of the Democracy. Bouck, 
originally a farmer politician from rock-ribbed Schoharie County, 
had for some years been a prominent and industrious Canal Com- 
missioner. His journeys, in the execution of his duties, up and 
down the route of the great work, mounted on his faithful old 
white horse whose name was often coupled with his own, had made 
him well known and well liked by a numerous public. 

The Radical element naturally found its protagonist in the 
stern, able, but almost too strict Comptroller, who had outlined 
the policy of retrenchment that was making the issue a live one. 
It has been truly said that the personality of Flagg endowed the 
reform movement with more vitality and cohesion than any other 
single thing could have done.*® Many of his political associates, 
accustomed to accept his judgment on practical, and especially on 
financial matters, soon adhered to his course in regard to the 
retrenchment policy, and thus variously affected both their own 
later fortunes and those of the party. Foremost among these 
was Silas Wright, who, as a United States senator, was then up- 
holding with distinction the credit of the Empire State in that 
tribunal where the genius of Webster, Clay, Calhoun, and Benton 
made it doubly difficult for other men to shine. Wright’s enforced 
long absences from the state, and the fact that, when at home, 


18 Alexander, II, 6, 53. ® Ibid., II, 58. 


NEW YORK CANALS 21 


he lived in the remote north-country village of Canton, prevented 
him from having close personal knowledge of, or interest in, the 
canal problem. He was a close friend and steady correspondent 
of Flagg, and very soon became convinced of the “sinister designs” 
of the canal advocates and the danger of agreeing with them. 
Michael Hoffman, of Herkimer, a distinguished lawyer and a 
former Member of Congress, and his “brother,” Judge Arphaxed 
Loomis, reached the same conclusion by an independent study of 
the finances. John Van Buren, son of the President, and Benja- 
min F. Butler, former Attorney-General in Jackson’s cabinet and 
a leader of the American bar, attached themselves to the same cause. 

Such was the political and financial situation in the state when, 
on January 1, 1838, the Assembly for the first time passed into 
the hands of the Whigs by virtue of their astonishing and over- 
whelming victory of the previous November. On the main point 
at issue, the Whigs were enthusiastic advocates of more liberal 
expenditures for canals, both new and old. Their chairman of 
the canal committee in the new Assembly, Samuel B. Ruggles, 
promptly brought in a report of such weight and timeliness that 
it is ranked with the earlier reports of Wright and Flagg and 
the later ones of Denniston and Seymour as a classic on this vexa- 
tious question.” In this famous report, Ruggles took a most 
optimistic view of the possibilities of the canals as commerce- 
carrying and revenue-producing agencies. He declared that, far 
from there being any serious doubt about their ability to repay 
the expenditures then contemplated, there was good reason to be- 
lieve that, should the sum of $20,000,000 be borrowed by the 
state for their extension, it could be repaid out of the revenues 
of the canals themselves within twenty years; and, should 
$40,000,000 be borrowed, it would be repaid, from the same 
source, within twenty-eight years. 

The Whig Assembly thereupon proceeded to pass a bill author- 
izing the Canal Commissioners to borrow $1,000,000 for the pur- 
pose of the enlargement, and pledging the credit of the state to 
see that the work should be completed within five years, and 
making a conditional appropriation of $3,000,000 in addition to 
the $1,000,000. In the Senate, the bill was amended so as to 


” Hammond, III, 90, 92. 


Ze THE BARNBURNERS 


authorize an absolute loan of $4,000,000; and, in this form, it 
passed both houses almost unanimously, only Preston King and 
two other Radicals voting against it in the lower house.** When 
the measure came to Marcy, he did not veto it, as one might 
have expected. His views of canal construction were already 
moderating; for in his message of that year, a message destined 
to be his last, the Governor had said, “I am persuaded that a 
larger sum might be advantageously expended, without causing 
interruption or delays . . . on the canal. ... Both duty and 
interest indicate the propriety of making it [the canal] not only 
adequate to the public wants, but of making it so at the earliest 
practicable period.”*? From this time on, Marcy grew to be less 
and less identified with the Radical wing of his party. 

Governor Seward, in his first message, declared that the finances 
of the state were in a satisfactory condition, using language of 
praise that was to return later and vex him and his party. He 
contradicted the views of Flagg, saying optimistically: ‘“Taxation 
for purposes of internal improvement is happily unnecessary as it 
would be unequal and oppressive. . . . the most ardent advocates 
of the [canal] system failed altogether to conceive the vast tribute 
which it has caused already to flow into the treasury. . . . their 
fi.e., the canals’] productiveness would warrant the state in ex- 
pending in internal improvements $4,000,000 annually during a 
period of ten years. . . . the revenues of the canals alone”’ would 
reimburse this expenditure previous to 1865.”** ‘The legislature, 
now Whig in both branches, accepted this view with enthusiasm; 
and the process of building and borrowing went vigorously on. 
The state debt rose by leaps and bounds—$16,229,141.68 increase” 
in four years of Whig-Conservative policy, or about 225 per cent. 
Coincidently with this, the credit of the state fell with alarming 
rapidity. Her five per cent bonds were almost unsaleable at 70 
cents on the dollar, six per cents sold at 75 to 78, and even seven 
per cents were down to 90."° The difficulty of obtaining money 
practically put a stop to the public works. ‘This was during a 
time of general depression, when the country had not recovered 


1 Hammond, II, 484. *4 Quoted in Whitford, I, 158. 
2 Davis, 21-22. * Hammond, III, 275. 
%Seward also urged three lines of *° Ibid., 285. 

state-aided railroads. 


NEW YORK CANALS 23 


from the effects of the great panic, and when many states sus- 
pended entirely the redemption of their obligations. 
In the face of this serious predicament, a general demand went 


up for retrenchment and a return to the economical system previ- 
ously in use, of “pay as you go.” ‘The legislature was bitterly 


censured for lending its sanction to the accumulation of the new 
debt; and the demand for a check upon its power in that direction 
found expression in a notable set of resolutions introduced in the 
Assembly of 1841 by Judge Arphaxed Loomis, of Herkimer 
County, and afterwards known as the “People’s Resolutions.” 
Whether Judge Loomis should really receive the credit for the 
origin of the sentiments therein expressed has been a subject of 
warm dispute. George W. Smith, a close student of that period, 
upholds his claim unquestioningly.** Nathaniel S. Benton, Loomis’ 
contemporary, on the other hand, testifies: ‘This proposition was 
adopted by a convention held in the county. (Herkimer) in the 
year 1837. ... The rough draft of the resolution was shown 
to me in my office by my then law partner, in his own handwriting, 
and I am confident that he alone was the author of it. . . . When 
first brought out, the project attracted but little attention outside 
of the county; but it became one of the standing resolutions of 
the county conventions for several years, and was finally adopted 
as a cardinal point in the democratic creed, first in the county, 
and then in the State.”** Henry O’Reilly, of Rochester, on the 
other hand, always contended that he himself was largely respon- 
sible for the idea, and that, “chad the name of Herkimer never 
been heard,” constitutional reform in the direction of retrench- 
ment—which we shall see was an essential element of the People’s 
Resolutions—would have come about as early.” The Resolutions 
provided that the State Constitution should be so amended that 
every proposition to increase the state debt must be submitted to 
the people separately and specifically and approved by them before 
the money could be borrowed. This novel and radical proposal 
was keenly discussed, and failed of passage in the Assembly by 
a tie vote, 53 to 53,°° many Democrats voting against it. The 


™ George W. Smith Mss. ®° Lincoln, Charles Z., Constitutional 
* Benton, N. S., Herkimer County and History of New York, II, 83. Hammond 
the Upper Mohawk Valley, 279. (III, 289) says, by 35 to 49. 


® OReilly Mss. 


24 THE BARNBURNERS 


course of events, however, steadily increased the public sentiment 
in its favor; and when, in the next year, the Democrats gained 
control of the Assembly, Judge Loomis’ friend and neighbor, 
Michael Hoffman, chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, utilized this sentiment to effect a drastic change in the 
canal and financial policy of the state. This was done through 
the celebrated act known commonly as the “Stop and Tax law” 
of 1842. 

This act, which forms chapter 114 of the laws of 1842, pro- 
vided that all canal work should forthwith be stopped, except such 
parts as were actually indispensable to navigation or subject to 
decay by inoperation or more costly when idle. It further pro- 
vided that a one mill tax should be levied, thus restoring the policy 
abandoned fifteen years before and so vigorously but vainly in- 
sisted upon by Flagg in his report of 1835. The entire proceeds 
of the first year’s tax, and one half of the amount thereafter, 
were for the rehabilitation of the general fund, and to be used 
for general state purposes. The other half was devoted to canal 
purposes.** It will readily be seen that the principle and prescrip- 
tions of the law were alike radical and reformatory, and that 
it must have represented a large body of popular sentiment, to 
succeed in adoption. 

Nevertheless, even within the Democratic ranks, there were 
many, and among them men of influence, who opposed such a 
departure, and many others who consented to it only on the ground 
of temporary necessity. Among the former was Henry A. Foster, 
and among the latter, William C. Bouck. Foster proposed in 
the Senate an amendment to Hoffman’s bill, appropriating $650,000 
for the specific purpose of continuing work upon the Erie enlarge- 
ment, and the Black River and Genesee Valley Canals. ‘This 
amendment failed; whereupon another Democrat, Senator Faulkner, 
moved an amendment relating to the Canal Board, having a similar 
purpose to Foster’s. ‘This also failed; but Hammond declares 
that “the proceedings of the Democratic members of the Senate 
on the amendments of Mr. Foster and Mr. Faulkner are worthy 
of particular notice, because they afforded the first public demon- 
stration in our state legislature of the difference of opinion be- 


* Lincoln, II, 84. 


NEW YORK CANALS 25 


tween that portion of the Democratic party called the Barnburners 
or radicals, and those that were afterwards called conservatives, 
or ‘Hunkers.’”** From this time forward, the Radicals had a 
concrete platform on which they could stand together and seek 
to dominate the will of the party. 

The salutary effects of the Stop and Tax Law were almost 
instantaneous, and were admitted even by its foes, who, however, 
sought to divide the credit. With the cessation of work upon 
the canals, state expenditures dropped considerably. ‘This, joined 
with the helpful accession of new income and the assurance of 
more, enabled the state, for the first time in several years, to live 
within its resources. As soon as this became apparent, the credit 
of the state improved, the seven per cent bonds returning to par 
in two months, the others during the next year. Among the 
eminent financiers who approved the report on which the law was 
based. appears the name of Albert Gallatin, certainly no mean 
judge.** And three years later, we find Governor Wright, in 
his very able message, declaring: “The manner in which that 
legislation was received by the people, although imposing a direct 
tax on all their personal property as its first provision, the salutary 
influences it so promptly exerted upon public and private credit, and 
the triumphant manner in which its provisions and policies have 
been sustained by the people . . . present a more forcible argu- 
ment .. . than it would be in my power to offer.” ** 

Thus it may be seen that the ramifications of the canal question 
were the ultimate source of division, the “‘fons et origo” from 
which sprang the dissensions in the Democratic party at that period. 
But other issues were not lacking to create friction and rivalry 
between the different elements and leaders, to the detriment of 


the party. 


%2 Hammond, III, 283. N.Y. Assembly Documents, 1845, 
*3 Whitford, I, 169. No. 2. 


CHAPTER III 


OTHER ISSUES AND NAMES 


sharp contest arising out of the attitude and action of the 

Democratic state administration toward the banks within 
the state. President Jackson’s crusade against the United States 
Bank had commanded the general and hearty support of the bulk 
of his party in this state, as was demonstrated by a unanimous 
vote in the committee of both houses of the legislature of 1831 
upon a resolution commending him for it.* The efforts of the 
Bank to curtail its loans and to lay the blame therefor upon the 
President and his advisers for having removed the government 
deposits, had failed. ‘They had served only to strengthen the 
administration and to benefit the state banks, which increased in 
prosperity day by day. ‘This prosperity was reflected in the large 
number of applications made annually to the state legislature for 
charters to engage in the business of banking. In granting these 
charters, the majority in the legislature took care that the stock 
in the new banks should be placed in the hands of its friends, 
which tended, for the time being, to create a powerful interest 
attached to the party. 

Presently, however, ugly .rumors began to arise; and, during 
the session of 1836, the charge was openly made that some Demo- 
cratic senators were guilty of improper practices in connection with 
the banks and other stocks. Proceedings were started in the Senate 
to remove two of them, Bishop and Kemble. Kemble anticipated 
the issue by resigning; Bishop was saved by a vote of 16 to 12, 
the most of the majority declaring that the Senate lacked the con- 
stitutional power to expel him unless after impeachment, and also 
that his offense was not proved to be deserving of such serious 
punishment. ‘The matter, however, caused great scandal, and 
much bitterness within the party. Samuel Young, then a member 


\IRST among the secondary causes of dissension was the 


1 Albany Daily Argus, April 25, 1831; 
editorial. 


OTHER ISSUES AND NAMES 27 


of the Senate, led the movement to have the men expelled, and 
resigned after the contrary decision. He was in close touch with 
Comptroller Flagg; and their correspondence shows the interest 
taken in their efforts. Among those who wrote to Flagg, com- 
mending his action, were A. C. Niven of Monticello, later promi- 
nent in the Barnburner movement, and James Hooker of Pough- 
keepsie.” Flagg sent summaries of the testimony to various editors, 
one of whom, G. J. Grosvenor of the Geneva Gazette, replied: “I 
shall endeavor to have published in this week’s Gazette, the sub- 
stance of Col. Young’s report with a few comments of the nature 
you mention. In not mentioning this matter before, we have been 
in some measure governed by the course of the Argus, which we 
are accustomed to regard as sound in morals as in politics.”* Evi- 
dently, the Argus’ editor considered it politically prudent and 
morally unobjectionable to observe discreet silence in a controversy 
that might involve no one knew how many public men. 

During this period, also, serious apprehension began to be felt 
as to the probable results of the wild spirit of speculation that was 
sweeping over this as well as other states. Governor Marcy ably 
sums up the situation in his message for 1836: 


There can be no mistake about the fact, and it should not pass unno- 
ticed, that an unregulated spirit of speculation has within the last year 
prevailed to an unprecedented extent. ... These operations have 
required something more than the use of our circulating credits... . 
The vacant lands in and about several of our cities and villages have risen, 
in many instances, several hundred per cent, and large quantities of them 
have been sold at prices, which seem to me to have been produced more 
by the competition of speculation than any real demand resulting from 
the increase of our population and actual prosperity. . .. Merchants 
and others have abstracted from their business a portion of their capital 
and devoted it to speculations in stocks and Jands, and have then resorted 
to the banks for increased accommodations. ‘To these causes I ascribe 
most of the embarrassment now felt for the want of sufficient bank 
facilities to conduct successfully our ordinary business concerns. The 
proposed remedy, judging from the applications, is to double the present 
number of banks, and nearly to treble the amount of banking capital. 
Before you apply this remedy, in whole or in part, you ought to be well 
satisfied that it will remove the difficulty, and that the use of it will not 
leave us in a worse condition than we are at present.* 


* Flagg Mss.; Miscellaneous Letters, $ Tbid., May 22, 1836. 
1836. *Hammond, II, 450 ff. 


28 THE BARNBURNERS 


The Governor was undoubtedly right in his apprehensions; but 
his warnings fell upon deaf ears. The legislature chartered many 
new banks, and voted to extend the charters of more; nor did the 
Governor, in spite of his forbidding words, venture to veto any 
of these permits. ‘Those, however, who did venture to oppose the 
craze, were looked upon with hatred by the friends of the banks. 
This hatred extended to the Governor himself, and eventually 
proved a powerful factor in his defeat.° 

All through 1836 the mania went merrily on. In the midsum- 
mer, Jackson’s famous Specie Circular dealt a hard blow to the 
speculators and to the banks. ‘They resented this by attacking the 
President as well as the Governor; and in some sections, having 
no opportunity to be revenged upon the former, they voted against 
the latter. ‘Thus, a letter from P. Reynolds, Jr., to Flagg, dated 
Fonda, Nov. 12, 1836, says “the disorganizers in Johnstown have 
combined with the Whigs and elected their Congressman, and pos- 
sibly Assembly candidates, reducing the vote for Marcy from 639 
in 1834 to 312.”° ‘The causes of this, however, were probably 
mostly local, as Marcy received in the state as a whole the unprece- 
dented majority of 30,000. 

In the following year, the storm broke, and engulfed the power- 
ful Democracy. The terrible panic of 1837 began May 10th with 
the suspension of specie payments by the New York banks. ‘This 
action was immediately imitated by all the interior banks. ‘The 
legislature happened to be still in session, and promptly suspended 
that portion of the safety fund act which would have required the 
banks to go into the hands of receivers when they ceased to pay 
specie. ‘This allowed the banks to continue business, and they did 
their best to weather the storm. 

There was, however, another measure that caused widespread 
inconvenience, annoyance, and loss. ‘This was an act passed two 
years earlier’ that forbade the banks from issuing bills in denom- 
inations of less than five dollars. The banks, therefore, could 
not pay small bills in change, and they would not pay out specie. 
The people, therefore, who must have change, were forced to 
resort to the illegal but indispensable practice of using small bills 


5 Gillet, Ransom H., Democracy in the ° Flagg Mss.; Miscellaneous Letters. 
United States, 127. * Alexander, II, 17. 


OTHER ISSUES AND NAMES 29 


issued by the banks of other states. Now, many of those banks 
had become insolvent; hence their bills were really worthless. Sen- 
ator Tracy now introduced a bill to repeal the troublesome law; 
but his bill failed, by a vote of 15 to 13, Samuel Young again 
leading the opposition. Some time later, the people of Broome 
County in vexation petitioned Governor Marcy to ask the legisla- 
ture again to repeal the law; but he refused, alleging as a reason 
that the proposal had already been made and defeated. ‘Thus, dur- 
ing the whole of that fatal summer, the people of New York suf- 
fered from all the evils of the national crisis, aggravated by peculiar 
ills of their own. 

Meanwhile, President Van Buren had dashed the hopes of 
those who may have expected that he would yield to the dictates 
of “‘big business’? and perhaps recall the Specie Circular or other- 
wise show favor to the friends of bank-paper and speculation. He ~ 
brought forward the Independent Treasury plan, entirely divorcing 
the government from the banks. The friends of the banks were 
enraged, and they prepared to bolt this action of the party leaders. 
Under the lead of United States Senator Nathaniel P. Tallmadge, 
who but a little while before had, in the interests of the small 
banks, vigorously upheld the overthrow of “the” big one, the Con- 
servatives, as they called themselves, held a convention at Syracuse, 
and decided not to support candidates who upheld the new policy 
in regard to public money. One of the leaders was Samuel Beards- 
ley of Utica, who was held responsible for a series of articles which 
appeared during September in the Albany Argus over the signature 
of “Marshal,” in which the wisdom of the President’s reeommenda- 
tions was attacked, and resistance to them was advocated. Samuel 
J. Tilden, then a young man of twenty-three, attracted attention 
by a series of papers in reply, and next year debated the same sub- 
ject with Tallmadge.*® 

At first, this revolt and other symptoms of discontent were not 
taken very seriously, as Flagg’s letter of November 5th shows.° 
But when the returns came in, and it was seen what a revolution 
in the Assembly membership had taken place,'® a warm discussion 
ensued as to the causes of such a result. Flagg wrote to the Presi- 

® Cyclopedia of Contemporary Biogra- The Whigs elected 101 Assembly- 


phy of N. Y., article, “Tilden.” men, as against 34 the year before. 
*See above, p. 10. 


30 THE BARNBURNERS 


dent on November 9th,** “The Conservatives, who in many 
instances were in stations of committeemen, etc., have played into 
the hands of the Whigs, and all the speculative class are rejoiced 
at the result.” Many others shared in this view, and named cir- 
cumstances to substantiate their belief. ‘Thus G. B. Pettit of 
Fabius, writing to Flagg, November 7th, declares, “the Onondaga 
Standard has been ‘bank-mad’ ever since Gov. Marcy’s message.” 
It fulminated against that and his subsequent message of 1837, 
hailed with delight the conservative doctrines of Senator Tall- 
madge ... rejected the crowning measure of the President’s 
message, advocated the interests of the money power by pleading 
for a ‘return ‘to ‘small ‘bills.'.)..5), 7’ \etc."*. Cu) Co Cambrelenm 
wrote to the President, ‘““The conservatives have everywhere openly 
united with the Whigs. I learned from a gentleman just from 
Poughkeepsie that Mr. Tallmadge and his friends voted the Whig 
ticket. We have now got rid of the traitors and are prepared for 
a fresh start.”** ‘They had in truth got rid of Tallmadge, who 
thereafter acted as an independent. On the other hand, Ex-Goy- 
ernor Throop acquitted the banks of blame for the defeat. His 
proofs were that the greatest falling off in the vote came from 
the counties that had no banks or very few. He sent a clipping 
from the Cayuga Patriot, stating that that paper agreed with the 
Schenectady Democrat that the banks of those localities had held 
aloof from the contest; “‘the reports that prominent republicans 
in this village [Auburn] voted the Whig ticket are equally false, 
and are circulated to create jealousies.”** Yet even Throop admit- 
ted*® that the “small-note question” was the chief cause of the 
people’s dissatisfaction. Most significant of all is the fact that, 
when Tallmadge’s term in the United States Senate expired, in 
1839, he was reélected by Whig votes to keep his followers in 
the Whig fold.** It is true, Tallmadge himself protested to Presi- 
dent Polk in 1845,** that he had always considered himself a Dem- 
ocrat; but the fact was well-recognized by all that his course was 
largely instrumental in putting the Whigs in power in this state, 


“Van Buren Mss., XXX, 6976. 1° Ibid., 7036. 

% Of 1836; see above, p. 27. 7 Alexander, II, 38. 

Van Buren Mss., XXX, 6976. 8 Polk’s Diary, I, 57, entry for Oct. 
4 Tbid., 6981. 14, 1845. 


® Tbid., 7053 and a. 


OTHER ISSUES AND NAMES 31 


and thus enabling them, as we have seen, to initiate that financial 
policy which so embarrassed the state and divided the Democratic 
factions. 

During all this period, the choice of most of the important state 
officials by joint vote of the legislature placed a powerful weapon 
in the hands of the dominant party and its leaders. ‘The secretary 
of state, the treasurer, the comptroller, and the attorney-general, 
as well as the canal commission, the state printer, and the regents 
of the State University, derived their offices from the gift of the 
legislature. “These were places of great dignity and authority, and 
considerable emolument; hence the bestowal of them was a fruit- 
ful subject of intra-party discussion and intrigue. Except for the 
brief period from 1838 to 1842, they were filled by Democrats, 
and most of the leaders whose names we have met were either 
candidates or incumbents. 

When the legislative caucus of 1842 assembled, there was a 
particularly lively contest. The party had suffered the unusual 
deprivation of three years’ absence from the spoils, and during 
that interval, financial developments had accentuated the differences 
of view as to the party’s financial policy. The result of the bal- 
loting for comptroller, the office most vital, was that A. C. Flagg 
received 105 out of 107 votes cast; nevertheless, says Hammond, 
there were many who disliked his selection, “not because they dis- 
trusted his capacity or his integrity, but because an impression did 
prevail that he was too stringent in his notions in relation to the 
expenditures on the credit of the state for internal improvements.’””” 
These men were able to gain the confidence of many who had 
great influence in the party councils, and their dislike of Flagg and 
his friends soon took tangible shape. 

Finally, there were several subsidiary topics of national and 
state policy, of less practical importance than the Canal and Bank 
questions, but upon which the resentment of certain portions of 
the state and of the party had become wrought up. These included 
the affair of the sloop Caroline, the arrest and later release of 
McLeod, a British subject, and the Patriots’ War of 1837-38 in 
Canada, a movement which had enlisted the sympathies of nearly 
the entire American border population, but which had been opposed 


# Hammond, III, 265. 


32 THE BARNBURNERS | 


by the stern official discouragement of both President Van Buren 
and Governor Marcy. ‘These various matters and the treatment 
of them, had all contributed fuel to the fires of party discord that 
were smouldering but not extinct when the Democracy was await- 
ing its return to full power in the summer of 1842. 

To the faction that demanded radical restriction of canal exten- 
sion and the reimposition of a direct tax, there now began to be 
applied the picturesque but scarcely clarifying name of “Barn- 
burners.” ‘The use of the term is not common before 1843; and 
its bestowal denotes the beginning of a bitter feeling prophetic of 
something more than a mere struggle for party supremacy. ‘The 
term is said by some” to have originated in the angry charge of 
their opponents that the Radicals were none too good to be guilty 
of burning barns; that, in fact, they had condoned such excesses 
when committed by the radical element in Rhode Island, during 
the Dorr Rebellion there. ‘This explanation seems fantastic; for 
there was no clear connection between the Rhode Island troubles, 
which were constitutional and political, and New York’s financial 
problems. Hence, there was no more reason why the Radicals 
should have sympathized with the Dorrites than that their opponents 
should have done so. It would seem, too, that the name, if orig- 
inated on such grounds, would naturally have been applied to the 
Anti-Renters, who were quite numerous at that very time. The 
assertion, however, made in Harper’s Encyclopedia that “‘the radical 
Democrats sympathized with the Anti-Renters” is not borne out 
by the facts.” 

Another explanation is, that the name grew out of a slighting 
remark that the policy of the Radicals in connection with public 
works resembled that of the legendary Dutch farmer who had 
burned down his barn to rid it of the rats—the implication being 
that the Barnburners were willing to destroy the public works and 
corporations to stop the abuses connected with them.*? This explana- 
tion was given by speakers on both sides** during discussion in the 
legislature, and it may be accepted as the true one. The name, 


® Jenkins, John S., History of Politi- *1 See Democratic Review, XXVII, 529 
cal Parties in the State of New York, ff. 
570, footnote. Harper’s Encyclopedia of 2N. Y. Tribune—date not given— 
United States History, I, article, “Barn- quoted in Jenkins’ History. 
Burners,” in which a letter of Thurlow Stanwood, Edward, History of the 


Weed is quoted as authority. Presidency, 229. 


OTHER ISSUES AND NAMES 33 


like so many other appellations, both political and religious, was 
for a long time used only by the enemies of those to whom it was 
applied; but in 1847, at the celebrated Herkimer convention, Sam- 
uel Young, one of their oldest and ablest leaders, accepted the 
designation. “Gentlemen,” said he, “They call us barnburners. 
Thunder and lightning are barnburners sometimes; but they great- 
ly purify the whole atmosphere, and that, gentlemen, is what we 
propose to do.”** From that time on, such they continued to be 
called and, however unjustly, such they will doubtless continue to 
be known to history. Strictly, however, they should be called 
Radicals until after the election of 1846,” and this usage I shall 
follow here. 

To their rivals for party supremacy, the equally inappropriate 
and mystifying name “Hunkers” or “Old Hunkers” was given. 
This was supposed to ridicule their strenuous efforts to get a large 
“hunk” of the spoils of office;*® though, as Greeley slyly observed, 
“we never could discover that they were peculiar in zhat,” and it is 
true that during the epoch of the struggle, the Barnburners prob- 
ably surpassed their rivals both in getting and keeping the offices. 
The name Hunkers is useful, however, in distinguishing the friends 
of the canals from those other Conservatives who followed ‘Tall- 
madge in the revolt of the bank forces. 


*4Weed, Thurlow, Autobiography, I, 
534. 

*® Mr. Doolittle said, in the state con- 
vention at Syracuse, 1847: “they did not 
use such epithets in the country. When 
he came here, he scarcely knew to which 
side he belonged.” Argus, Oct. 17, 1847. 


*® Another but less probable explanation 
is that it is derived from the Dutch word 
“honk,” a post or station, reflecting on 
their supposed stationary attitude toward 
reforms. See Harper’s Encyclopedia of 
United States History, ut supra. 


CHAP LER LV, 


THE FIRST YEAR OF GOVERNOR BOUCR’S 
ADMINISTRATION 


T is notoriously true that the best alleviator of party dissension 
is a period of exclusion from public office. So, as the autumn 
election of 1842 drew near, the Radicals and the Hunkers 

showed an inclination to sink their differences in order to muster 
the full party strength and thus to regain control of the state admin- 
istration. “The man selected as the candidate of the united party 
for the governorship was the amiable and moderate Canal Com- 
missioner, William C. Bouck. Bouck had the political advantage 
of being by vocation a farmer. I say “advantage,” because at that 
time it was farmers rather than lawyers who predominated in the 
favor of the voters for public offices of the state. For instance, 
there were in one Assembly 51 farmers to 25 of the next most 
numerous vocation. In his avocation, however, that of an office- 
holder, he was even more experienced and better known. Some of 
the Radicals were not without misgivings as to the probable effect 
of Bouck’s election; for their rage was hot against the Canal 
Commissioners. Hoffman wrote gloomily, “If, as is probable, 
Bouck is to be nominated, this is our last hour. In it, let us do our 
whole duty to the Democracy.”* But, for the most part, opposi- 
tion was stilled. 

Bouck was nominated as a compromise candidate—it being under- 
stood that he would not hinder the “Stop and Tax Law.” He was 
elected by 21,881 plurality, carrying 43 out of 59 counties. His 
real attitude upon the tender subject of canal extension might have 
been assumed to be rather friendly to such work, from his long 
and rather lucrative connection with it, and such indeed was the 
fact. The Radicals, however, may have counted at this time upon 
Martin Van Buren’s influence with Bouck to keep the latter within 


Flagg Mss., Hoffman Letters; letter 
of July 27, 1842. 


BOUCK’S ADMINISTRATION 35 


bounds. Van Buren, indeed, was the Governor’s political mentor; 
but the ex-President had hitherto shown little interest in the funda- 
mental principles of the Radicals. It was perhaps his general affilia- 
tion with some of their leaders, such as Flagg, and his historic 
stand for financial solvency, that led them to expect his aid in 
controlling the new governor. With the other prominent state offi- 
cials, Bouck’s relations were not close or cordial. ‘They distrusted 
him, and did not take him into their confidence. They seem neither 
to have feared his power nor respected his following; but Bouck, 
though not a dominating personality, had nevertheless much industry 
and some shrewdness, and was not a man to be despised with impun- 
ity. He set out at his earliest opportunity to build up his own 
“machine,” after the familiar habit of governors, and by the cus- 
tomary methods. 

Bouck’s first message, transmitted to the legislature on January 
4, 1843, was a plain, intelligible, and unambitious paper of mod- 
erate length. Its tone was conciliatory, as befitted its sponsor and 
the delicacy of his situation. It was really the work of Van Buren, 
to whom Bouck had applied, promptly upon his election, for guid- 
ance. Van Buren’s reply, the original draft of which, dated Dec. 
7, 1842, is still preserved, much underlined and annotated,’ gave 
Bouck rather more than a skeleton outline, with suggestions such 
as “Here insert figures, of State debt,” etc., for the Governor’s 
other advisers to supply. “The message contains more discussion 
of national affairs than is usual in such a paper, and several passages 
were evidently intended as campaign material for the following 
year. Considerable attention is devoted to the state finances, with 
exhortation to economy; but, nevertheless, the suggestion is timidly 
made that “the completion of the unfinished work at the Schoharie 
creek, at Sprakers . . . would be essentially useful, and some 
of it may be indispensably necessary.” Even “the speedy com- 
pletion of the Black River Canal and feeder to and including the 
summit level, and the Genesee Valley Canal, as far as the first 
feeder . . . is doubtless anxiously desired by the friends of these 
improvements. I do not feel that I should faithfully discharge 
my duty did I not recommend for your careful consideration these 
portions of the public works. ‘This should of course be done with 
strict reference to the financial condition of the state.’”® 


2 Van Buren Mss., XLIV, 10434. ® Hammond, III, 319. 


36 THE BARNBURNERS 


In these suggestions, the Governor was expressing his own senti- 
ments, for Van Buren had little personal interest in the public 
works. Moreover, he had emphatically warned the Governor of 
the dangerous ground he was treading, when he suggested to him 
the use of the following language: 


It can with great truth be said that no public question has ever been 
more fully and undisguisedly presented to the decision of the people 
than has the policy adopted by the last legislature in regard to the internal 
improvements of the State and the provision they had made for the sup- 
port of its credit. The result was an... overwhelming and almost 
unprecedented majority of the people in their favor. My appearance 
before you this day in the character of the chief magistrate of this State 
is an item in that result, . . .4 


The fact that Bouck chose to offer his own plans, even when 
they did not accord with such potent advice, reveals his earnest 
predilection. for a liberal canal policy. ‘The Radicals clearly saw 
this, and they were instantly alert to prevent any attempt by the 
Governor to undermine the Stop and Tax Law. 

Their suspicion was reflected in the uneasy tone of the com- 
ment on the message. Silas Wright, acknowledging a copy, wrote 
that it was “simple and plain,”® but warned the Governor against 
urging one measure rather than another upon the legislature, as 
politically inexpedient. Democratic papers generally extended the 
usual stereotyped approval, but could not be said to be enthusiastic. 
The Buffalo Courier “thinks the Governor is over-sanguine when 
he expresses the opinion that all the public works can be finished,” ® 
and also makes the criticism, based upon other recommendations of 
his, that he is of “a cautious turn of mind, which has rather led 
him astray in favor of what is established than in pursuit of those 
reforms so much needed by society.” Most savage of all, though 
concealed as yet in private correspondence, was the resentful oppo- 
sition of Michael Hoffman, “Admiral”? Hoffman as he was called, 
from his long service as chairman of the Committee on Naval 
Affairs in the national House of Representatives, and heretofore 
mentioned as the framer and advocate of the Stop and Tax Law. 


“Van Buren Mss., XLIV, 10434, pas- ° Daily Mercantile Courier, Buffalo, 
sim. 5 Ibid., XLV, 10646. Jan. 11, 1843. 


BOUCK’S ADMINISTRATION 37 


Hoffman’s knowledge of financial subjects was admittedly the 
soundest of any man’s, and his use of it is well illustrated in a strik- 
ing passage of Henry Stanton’s: 


In 1843, I spent a week or two in Albany, where a bill in regard to 
the enlargement of the canals was pending. For four days the debate 
shed darkness rather than light over the subject, and the chamber grew 
murky. One morning, a tallish man, with iron gray locks drooping 
on his shoulders, and wearing a mixed suit of plain clothes, took the 
floor on the canal bill. ... The first sentences arrested my attention. 
A beam of light shot thru the darkness, and I began to get glimpses of 
the question at issue. Soon a broad belt of sunshine spread over the 
chamber. I asked a member, “Who is that?” ‘‘Michael Hoffman” was 
the reply.” 


Hoffman, as stated above, had long been suspicious of Bouck; 
and now, in his letters to Flagg, he vented his anger in character- 
istic phrases. ‘Such a message sent into such a mass of discontent 
. . . sent from those that could not to those that would not 
see, . . . was the boldest push ever made by idiot debt-loving 
Brigandism to bring on . . . a load,”® etc.; and again, more 
argumentatively: 


By their election, the nominees of the Democratic State Convention 
were commissioned to perfect and execute the system of policy begun 
at the last session of the legislature. The message [of Governor Bouck] 
contained no distinct definite plan of legislative or constitutional retrench- 
ment or reform. Without the Executive lead, in a business so difficult, 
there is little reason to hope for success, ... Iam in favor of imme- 
diate bold and decided action. . . . The hope of a constitutional 
reform on the subjects of legislative power over expenditure, debts, 
banks and currency brought the present party into power. It was prom- 
ised: every Democratic paper advocated it, and none ever opposed it: in 
the session of 1841 every Democrat voted for it, every Whig against it. 
The same is substantially true of 1842, and no Democrat in either session 
ever ventured an argument against it. After this decided action, to 
change sides on coming into power is such an open profligacy .. . as 
has never been exhibited on this side of the Atlantic!® 


Thus, from one side, Governor Bouck was accused of being too 
sanguine and ambitious; from another, of being too stagnant. 


7 Stanton, Henry B., Random Recollec- 1843. 


tions, 85. ® Tbid., Mar. 16, 1843. 
° Flagg Mss., Hoffman Letters; Dec., 


38 THE BARNBURNERS 


How far from real harmony was the seeming solidity in the 
party ranks was soon revealed by a fierce personal controversy, 
destined to have lasting consequences of a sinister nature. ‘The 
office of state printer was one of the choicest plums in the gift of 
the legislature, conferring not only financial profit but journalistic 
prestige and political power upon its incumbent. For many years 
this coveted post had been conferred upon Edwin Croswell, the 
editor of the Albany Argus, a man whom we have already noticed 
as an influential member of the Regency. roswell was just the 
man to take full advantage of such a post. Country-born and 
humbly bred, he had worked his way up through every grade of 
journalistic service until he had attained the very top.*® Courteous 
and kindly in manner, suave and diplomatic by preference, he yet 
could wield a cutting and redoubtable pen, and could marshal fig- 
ures and arguments in a way to bring strength and confidence to 
his friends, and confusion to his enemies. Few American journal- 
ists ever exhibited more ability in conducting controversy, or in 
quieting animosities among his own friends, than Edwin Cros- 
well.** He had been in boyhood the playmate as he was now in 
manhood the worthy antagonist of the great Whig editor and poli- 
tician, Thurlow Weed, whose Albany Evening Journal then held 
the same post of dominance in that party that was later occupied 
by Greeley’s Tribune. In the generation just preceding that of 
those newspaper giants, Dana, Greeley, and Raymond, Croswell 
was easily first in reputation and influence among the political 
writers of New York State. 

The Argus, originally established in 1813 as the organ of the 
Tompkins faction of the Democracy, had been since 1820 the 
official paper of the state, except during the short period of Whig 
domination after 1838, when the honor had passed to the Journal, 
through Weed. From its beginning, the Argus had enjoyed remark- 
able prosperity. Before the sixth month, it had acquired a circula- 
tion of 4000, which exceeded that of any other paper in the state;*” 
and, in the years that followed, it had gained steadily in patronage 
and power. Its editorials were scanned with great care by party 

1° Alexander, I, 374-375. “Letter of Joel Munsell to the Com- 


“ Howell, George R., History of Al- mittee of the Printers’ Festival, Roches- 
bany Co., part I, 359. ter, in Argus, Jan. 12, 1847. 


BOUCK’S ADMINISTRATION 39 


Democrats throughout the state, and were accepted as orthodox 
doctrine in the field of politics.** Occasionally, when one of them 
seemed to exceed or to fall short of the ideas of some leader, he 
would write to suggest an amendatory or supplementary expression; 
but, as a rule, Croswell’s dicta, usually framed with care after 
consulting the other leaders at Albany, were authoritative. 

In the early differences between the Radical and the Conserva- 
tive Democrats, Croswell had observed his usual tactful neutrality. 
Party predominance was what he chiefly sought, and to this end 
harmony was essential. “The subject of canal extension and the 
accompanying financial arrangements was not a matter of principle 
to him, as to Flagg and Hoffman. He trusted and believed that, 
in this matter, as in others, the voice of the party, spoken through 
a majority, would be conclusive and that, after such a desirable 
conclusion, no premature criticism of either side should rankle 
behind. During all this period, Croswell’s impartiality was so 
unexceptionable that not even the most sensitive factionists, though 
some of them did suspect him of time-serving,’* could venture to 
attack his published views.*° 

Now, however, the prudent editor ran foul of a time-honored 
Democratic tenet and practice, that of “rotation in office.” It had 
long been felt and occasionally remarked that his many years’ tenure 
of the state printer’s post must have enriched Croswell unduly, 
in comparison with his fellow editors. It now began to be asserted 
that he ought not again to become a candidate for his old-time 
place, but let another deserving Democrat have it. This feeling 
found a candidate in a most unexpected quarter, none other than 
in the Argus office itself. Croswell, who since 1831 had been in 
partnership with his nephew Sherman Croswell, had lately taken 
into the firm Henry W. Van Dyck, who had formerly published 
a paper at Goshen, Orange County. Van Dyck now came for- 
ward and demanded that Croswell step aside, and let him have the 
state printership, alleging that such an agreement on Croswell’s 
part was one of the terms on which he had become a partner in 
the Argus. This Croswell denied; he offered to compromise by 


% See above, p. 27. %® Speech of Rufus W. Peckham to the 
“4 etter of Flagg, Van Buren Mss., Jury in Croswell-Cassidy Libel Suit; 
XXX, 6973. Argus, Feb. 15, 1847. 


40 THE BARNBURNERS 


merely having the Argus named the state paper, without specifying 
who should be state printer. ‘This offer Van Dyck refused, on 
the ground that, as the two Croswells owned two-thirds of the 
Argus, he would be overruled and the advantages flow to them as 
before. Another conciliatory offer, which would have made Van 
Dyck and the younger Croswell joint holders of the coveted office, 
was rejected for the same reason. 

The struggle was now transferred to the legislature. A bill 
was brought in by Senator Denniston, providing for the appoint- 
ment of a state printer by joint ballot, as in former years. Sen- 
ator Foster promptly moved an amendment, vesting the appoint- 
ment in the Governor, as it was believed that Governor Bouck was 
certain to appoint Croswell. Flagg and other state officers opposed 
the amendment, and thereby aligned themselves against the Gov- 
ernor and made evident to all the dissension among the party lead- 
ers. In the contest that ensued,.Flagg was not disposed to concili- 
ate. Hammond, in his contemporary account of the affair, says 
that he does not understand why Flagg should have opposed Cros- 
well. Flagg, however, had for some years been suspicious of Cros- 
well’s attachment to what the Comptroller believed the essentials 
of Democratic doctrine. In 1837, Flagg had written to Van 
Buren: “It has appeared to me that for 3 years Mr. Croswell has 
been so much engrossed with business, and some of it of a speculat- 
ing character, that his mind has been drawn off from the political 
department of the paper. . . .”*° 

It is true that in 1840-1841, Croswell had been associated with 
Flagg in the publication of a radical paper, the Rough-Hewer, at 
Albany, but it was precisely in that undertaking that the zealous 
Comptroller may have learned more of the lukewarmness of his 
associate’s support. In like manner, the Argus’ apparently loyal 
support of the Stop and Tax Law of 1842 can readily be explained 
on the ground of its well-known “regularity.” Flagg was also 
undoubtedly aware of Van Dyck’s radicalism, for Van Dyck had 
been a correspondent of his while still in Goshen, and had sought 
Flagg’s approbation for his editorial articles.™” 

The struggle that ensued was marked by considerable feeling. 


1° Van Buren Mss., XXX, 6973. May 7, 1836. 
™ Flagg Mss., Miscellaneous Letters; 


BOUCK’S ADMINISTRATION 41 


In the Senate, Foster’s amendment was adopted, ten Democrats 
voting for it and six against it, while two others, known to be 
against it, were absent. In the Assembly, meantime, exactly the 
opposite procedure had taken place, an amendment being carried, 
requiring the choice of a printer by joint ballot. In the end, the 
Hunkers in the Senate agreed to this solution, probably because they 
saw they could control the caucus. When the law had been passed, 
Croswell obtained the caucus nomination, receiving sixty-six votes, 
while Van Dyck withdrew as a candidate; whereupon the Radicals 
cast most of their forty-two votes for William Cullen Bryant, the 
scholarly editor of the New York Evening Post, who from this 
time forth was identified with their side. 

Ex-Governor Marcy, who was at that time living in private life 
in Albany, was an interested spectator and certainly a competent 
judge of this contest. On January 27th, he wrote ex-President 
Van Buren: ‘“The printing question has been quite bunglingly man- 
aged on both sides. If Van Dyck had played his cards well, Cros- 
well could not have been elected, unless in conjunction with him. 

There is certainly a tendency to schism—a division may 
be avoided, but this is not so easy as you may think.”** We may 
believe that Marcy used his best efforts to avoid the schism he fore- 
saw, but with what little result we shall soon see. 

Perhaps the most fateful result of this contest was the rise to 
prominence of the Albany Azlas, a paper in which Van Dyck pub- 
lished his attacks upon the Croswells. The Atlas was started in 
1841, and at first attracted no special attention; but it soon came 
under the management of James M. French and William Cassidy, 
two capable and aggressive young men; and, as usual, the voice of 
youth was more outspoken and less heedful of conventional prece- 
dents and consequences than the cautious tones of experience. ‘This 
attitude of the Atlas was quickly seen and made use of by Flagg 
and his associates. After 1843, the 4¢las continued to be the organ 
of the Radicals, and rapidly undermined that dominant influence 
which the Argus had enjoyed with the Democratic masses. In 
doing this, it dealt a serious blow to party discipline and prestige, 
and contributed in no small degree to the party disasters that were 
soon to come. An interesting circumstance connected with this 


* Van Buren Mss., XLIV, 10628. 


42 THE BARNBURNERS 


paper was that, through the marriage of French with the sister of 
John Van Buren, the latter brilliant young man came to have a 
voice in the Radical paper; and the decided enemies as well as the 
devoted friends whom he made by his vigorous personality readily 
identified their feelings toward him and his father with their atti- 
tude toward the Radical cause. 

Even the leading persons in this fight, and the politicians whose 
futures it was to affect most seriously, seem not to have foreseen 
the full consequences of it. Croswell, writing to Van Buren on 
February 4th of his resentment at the attacks upon his character 
and position by a factional press, of which “Mr. James M. French 
is the principal and the only responsible owner,” professed a feel- 
ing of surprise and indignation; and declared that he was “hurt 
by being deserted, nay opposed,” by some on whom he had relied. 
He reaffirmed his attachment to Van Buren and the principles he 
represented, which he “has proved by 25 years of service.” A dupli- 
cate of this letter was sent to Silas Wright, who concluded that 
“by a pretty strong implication, at least, he was . . . making 
me more responsible for the supposed affairs of John and French 
than he intended.””® From that time on, Wright and Croswell 
seem to have been mutually suspicious; for, in the summer of the 
same year, we find Wright saying: “Of one thing I have certainly 
no ground to complain of our friend of the Argus. Whenever our 
paper” prints an article that he seems to consider worth calling 
for notice, he is certain to make allusion to its source much less 
complimentary to his brother editor than he may suppose it to be 
to me.”*? This lack of friendship between two men who were 
to occupy the leading places, the one officially, the other unofficially, 
in the party during the crucial period soon to come, was a cir- 
cumstance destined to play havoc with the party’s success. 

But this fight was not the only subject of internal dispute by 
that same legislature. Another equally tactless quarrel arose over 
the interpretation of the Book Distribution Law of 1842. A law 
had been passed directing the Secretary of State to furnish each 
senator and assemblyman with ten copies of an elaborately bound 


Van Buren Mss., XLV, 10653-54. ed at Ogdensburg. 
 Ibid., XLVI, 15767. Letter to Van Flagg Mss., Silas Wright Letters; 
Buren, Feb. 7, 1843. Wright to Flagg, Aug. 4, 1843. 


= The St. Lawrence Republican, print- 


BOUCK’S ADMINISTRATION 43 


report on the geology of the state, the bill for which aggregated 
some thousands of dollars. Secretary Samuel L. Young, however, 
not only refused to furnish these, but wrote a scathing attack upon 
the legislature for presuming to make such a provision. Probably 
he was aiming not so much at this particular law as at earlier loans 
of credit to banks, etc. So severe were his strictures that the Sen- 
ate, controlled by his own party, officially replied to him and in 
turn denied his right to criticise. Lieutenant-Governor Daniel S. 
Dickinson likewise took up the issue; and it was fought out in the 
newspapers.” ‘This incident added to the bad blood existing. 

The matter of Governor Bouck’s distribution of patronage was 
a still sorer issue. Radical senators, as Ruger of Jefferson, alleged 
that the Governor had selected objectionable men for local offices 
within his power of appointment in their districts; and they blocked 
and defeated such nominations. ‘They also declared that their 
Hunker colleagues, as Foster of Oneida, were getting their friends 
and associates appointed to lucrative positions for which Radical 
candidates were barred. As, prior to this, legislative interference 
with gubernatorial appointments of the same party had been rare, 
we can readily understand what a commotion must have resulted 
from the wholesale rejection of Bouck’s appointments. Hammond 
declared** that the Governor’s appointments were really directed 
by a desire to conciliate both sides, but that this “temporizing pol- 
icy” was bad. Flagg testified that “‘the whole seems to be a mat- 
ter of traffic, and the office of senator is sought as a means of 
peddling out executive patronage. ... It is not surprising that 
senators who engage in these operations should regard them as of 
more importance than the success of the party.””° 

It was during this session too that the definite demand for a 
convention to frame a new State Constitution began to find free 
expression. [he Constitution of 1821 had become obnoxious in 
many parts. “True, some of its unpopular features, such as the 
restriction placed on election of officials, had been modified by con- 
stitutional amendment. But there remained as weak points, whose 
weakness it seemed could be remedied only by a sweeping revision, 
the judiciary clause, and, most of all, the debt or taxation clause. 


* Hammond, III, 356. % Van Buren Mss., XLVI, 10814-15. 
* Tbid., III, 339. Letter to Van Buren, Apr. 12, 1843. 


44 THE BARNBURNERS 


The Radicals strenuously asserted that a legislature could not be 
trusted to abstain faithfully from creating new unproductive debts. 
Let this be made a topic for popular action only, the Radicals said, 
and the legislature’s greedy hand will be stayed; it will confine 
itself to measures of real necessity, to the manifest gain of the 
popular welfare and the state credit. Hoffman had already said 
to Flagg: “I say to you what I do not hesitate to avow to others 
. . . 1f we are to have further loans and additional debts, I go 
for a convention and a new constitution. Monopoly may hiss and 
locality may yell, but a convention of the people must be called 
to sit in judgment on the past and command the future.”’* Most 
of the Radical leaders soon followed Hoffman’s lead in coming 
out for a convention, while the Hunkers took the other side. Gov- 
ernor Bouck identified himself with the latter, and succeeded in 
staving off for a time the final outcome.” 

The policy of the Whigs, as between these factions, was dictated 
by their natural eagerness to sow dissension and accumulate politi- 
cal credit. Whichever course seemed most likely to produce or to 
prolong dissension among their opponents, that was the course they 
supported. In the matter of the appointments, they acted with the 
Radicals; on the Book Distribution law, with the Hunkers; in the 
printership quarrel, with the Hunkers; while, in the agitation for 
a constitutional convention, they joined with the Radical advocates 
of that course. As a result of clever manceuvering, the Whig 
minority succeeded in widening very considerably the breach in 
their opponents’ ranks, without exposing themselves to the charge 
of political inconsistency. On the whole, the first year of 
Governor Bouck’s administration sadly failed to justify the ex- 
pectations formed when he was put forward as a compromise and 
conciliatory candidate in 1842. 

As the legislative session approached its close, the party leaders 
began to fear lest the bitterness produced by these various subjects 
of dispute between the factions might prevent their uniting on 


© Flagg Mss., Hoffman Letters; Letter tion of the convention. The Hunkers 
of Aug. 3, 1842. received the proposition coldly. In Jan- 

In the fall of 1843, a meeting of uary, 1844, Governor Bouck devoted 
50 members of the Radical faction was much of his second annual message to 
held in Albany, and adopted resolutions arguing ably against it. (Adapted from) 
foreshadowing somewhat the later ac- Hammond, III, 385-389. 


BOUCK’S ADMINISTRATION 45 


the customary address to the people. Influence was therefore 
brought to bear upon the malcontents, with the result that when 
adjournment did come, on April 18th, an address was adopted 
with apparent unanimity, which expressed approbation of Governor 
Bouck’s administration. Flagg says that Senator John C. Wright, 
one of the Hunker leaders, threatened that he and his friends 
would not sign any address unless this approval were given;** and 
he adds: “I have directed all my efforts to get the committees on 
address and resolutions to harmonize, so as to break up respect- 
ably... .” And again, he writes grimly, “King has made him- 
self extremely useful among the savage tribes.”” 

During the summer, both sides worked actively to control the 
county and senatorial conventions, the usual issue between them 
being that of indorsing Governor Bouck’s administration. In 
Schenectady County, the Radicals, led by former Senator A. C. 
Paige, voted down such a resolution, 34 to 15, whereupon some 
of the Hunkers went with the Whigs, enabling them to carry 
the election.*° In Cayuga County, the local ticket was reported 
to be endangered by the opposition of the Governor’s friends to 
George Rathbun, the Radical leader there, whose appeals caused 
Marcy to write to three Hunker leaders, but without much effect.** 
In Herkimer County, where Michael Hoffman was the candidate 
for assemblyman, an attempt was made to get up a mass-meeting 
to “correct some of the errors of the convention.” The Hunker 
strength in this county not being large, it was proposed quietly to 
scratch Hoffman’s name. ‘This aroused the latter’s wrath, and 
he expressed himself forcibly to Flagg, “This scratch game is 
too mean for anything in the shape of man. . . . The Executive 
Chamber should be made to speak out on this subject, through its 
organ, the Argus. . . . I advise that some of you press this matter 
on Marcy, Croswell and Co. ‘They must prevent it or be made 
responsible for it. ‘The knife that scratches is theirs, and will 
be returned to them;”* and he adds sarcastically, “Some think 
there is some confusion in these times. Captain Bouck sees 
through them as clear as mud, and finds harmony.”** Albany, 


%Van Buren Mss., XLVI, 10814-15. CC. Paige, Nov. 18, 1843. 

Letter of Flagg, April 12, 1843. 51 Thid., XLVII, 11098-99, 11130. 
® Tbid., Apr. 15, 1843. * Flagg Mss., Hoffman Letters; Let- 
* Ibid, XLVII, 11028. Letter of A. ter of Oct. 24, 1843. 38 Ibid. 


46 THE BARNBURNERS 


Ulster, and Rensselaer were other counties in which the spirit of 
strife proved too strong to quell. In Broome County, success 
came despite “pitiful schisms.’’** 

The state convention, however, was fairly harmonious. It met 
at Syracuse on September 5th, to select delegates to the national 
convention. On the day before, Flagg wrote to Van Buren that 
he believed the forthcoming state convention would be harmoni- 
ous.”” Colonel Young had agreed to withdraw as candidate for 
chairman in favor of Marcy, and would consent, though reluct- 
antly, to an indorsement of Governor Bouck. Nevertheless, 
Young’s name was presented for chairman, but he received only 
40 votes to 79 for Marcy. In the controversy between Bouck 
and the other officials, the convention straddled the issue by adopt- 
ing a resolution that “in him and the other distinguished indi- 
viduals associated with him in the state administration, the con- 
vention recognizes a true devotion to the wishes and welfare of 
the people.”*® Both Van Buren and Silas Wright, who was his 
representative at the national capital, were very anxious to avoid 
discussing and perpetuating the factional disputes; and, in July, 
Wright had encouraged the convention of his county—St. Law- 
rence—to give the Governor a generous expression of confidence.** 
A month before the election, however, he wrote: ‘“The appointment 
of delegates to the senatorial conventions and the nominations to the 
senate, so far as they have gone, indicate strongly to me that the 
old controversy of last winter is to be kept up, and the senate is 
to be relied upon to foster the corrupt influences and interests of 
the Beardsley*® faction. . . . I know that our friend Croswell 
has been busy in producing this result, and the tone of his publi- 
cation shows that those interests have become paramount to prin- 
ciple.” Judging from the immediate results of the election, how- 
ever, the feuds at Albany had not affected Democratic supremacy 
in the state. ‘The party captured 92 out of 128 Assembly seats, 


and increased its representation in the Senate to 26 out of 32. 


54 Van Buren Mss., Letter of D. S. Letter of Wright, July 14, 1843. 


Dickinson, Nov. 11, 1843. 88 Samuel Beardsley. He had opposed 
3 Van Buren Mss., XLVII, 11028. Wright’s reélection to the United States 
6 Hammond, III, 365. Senate in 1837, and later was ousted by 


7 Van Buren Mss., XLVII, 10974-75. Radical votes from his own state office. 


BOUCK’S ADMINISTRATION 47 


This very great predominance probably disposed the two factions 
to continue their quarrels. But it is true that these quarrels largely 
sprung out of matters of principle, particularly in reference to 
the public improvement policy. As Hoffman said at that time, 
“Most men will attribute most of the change in the vote for 
assembly since last year to the dissension at Albany last winter 
about appointments. But why did men divide in relation to ap- 
pointments? Were we not in fact divided about measures, and 
that too on the most vital principles of public policy, and did not 
this diversity lead to all the dissensions?”*? 


® Flagg Mss., Hoffman Letters. Let- 
ter of Dec., 1843. 


CHAPTER V 


SEYMOUR’S CANAL BILL AND ITS RESULTS 


HEN the Assembly of 1844 met, it was organized by 

the Hunkers, who, in the party caucus, defeated Hoff- 

man for Speaker by a vote of 56 to 35. ‘The defeat, 
nevertheless, did not diminish Hoffman’s influence. N. S. Benton, 
an opponent, testified later that “there are few if any instances 
. . . Where a single member exerted such powerful influence as 
did Mr. Hoffman during this session.”* Not anticipating this, 
evidently, Governor Bouck was encouraged to think that this legis- 
lature would be more sympathetic with his views than its immediate 
predecessors had been. So, in his message to the legislature, the 
Governor renewed, a little more strongly, his suggestion that some- 
thing might be done for the canals. New York, he pleaded, was 
really not so badly off as some of her sister states; her prestige 
and prosperity were so vitally connected with her public works 
that no safe opportunity of improving the latter should be neg- 
lected; and a favorable opportunity was now presented by the 
unusually low cost of labor, due to the general financial depression. 
Guarded as were the Governor’s remarks, the Radicals instantly 
took alarm. ‘Turning over that part of the message which related 
to the canals to the consideration of the Senate’s Committee on 
Canals, they entrusted to Senator Robert Denniston, one of their 
ablest members, the duty of upholding their position taken the 
previous year. In due time, Senator Denniston brought in a re- 
port? which, from the Radical point of view, was a masterpiece 


1 Papers Read before the Herkimer 
County Historical Society, I. Concrete 
evidence of his power is found in a 
letter of Smith, assemblyman from Put- 
nam Co., to ex-Congressman Gouverneur 
Kemble, now in possession of the latter’s 
nephew, Mr. G. Kemble, of Cold Spring, 
N. Y. The letter discusses the renewal 
of the charter of the West Point Foundry 


Association, in which the Congressman 
was interested, and says, “if Mr. H. had 
not been a member of our House, the 
charter of your ass’n would have been 
renewed without amendment or opposi- 
tion.” 

*N. Y. Assembly Documents, 1844, no. 
Wis 


ae 


SEYMOUR’S CANAL BILL 49 


in proving the necessity of continuing the Stop and Tax Law. 
He laid great emphasis upon the irregularities and extravagance 
of the work done upon the lateral canals, and showed that every 
one of them had cost several times what it had been estimated to 
cost when the work was ordered, and that the receipts from them 
had never reached nearly the sum that had been predicted. The 
Black River Canal, which had been estimated beforehand to cost 
$417,000, would actually require $2,431,000 to finish.2 The 
long-agitated Chenango Canal was a yearly expense to the state of 
over $123,000. These were not new arguments. The Comp- 
troller in 1835, the Governor in 1838, and both of them in other 
years, had pointed out like conditions, but without dissuading the 
legislature from beginning these works. Would Denniston’s argu- 
ments prove more potent in preventing it from finishing them? 

The Hunkers were equally alert, and, as they controlled the 
Assembly Committee on Canals, they also rendered a report, writ- 
ten by the future national leader, Horatio Seymour, which must 
fairly be admitted to be, in respect of cogency, logic, and per- 
suasiveness, the superior of Denniston’s, and which takes the oppo- 
site view. 

The two reports, often quoted in contradiction, are not in fact 
wholly antagonistic. They differed in regard to the disposition of 
any surplus that might arise from the canal operations. Seymour 
believed there was likely to be such a surplus, and favored apply- 
ing it toward defraying the expenses of enlarging the Erie and 


‘completing the Black River and Genesee Canals. Denniston 


doubted the likelihood of any such surplus, but favored applying 
what there might be to the extinguishment of the public debt. 


Both reports agreed, first, that a sinking fund should be estab- 
lished, which, within a given time, would ensure the extinction of 


the state debt; and second, that public works should be discontinued, 
rather than enlarge the state debt or check the sinking fund.* 
With clever strategy, Seymour commended Azariah C. Flagg’s 
policy of using only the surplus revenue of the canals for new 
works, condemning the less careful policy of the Whigs.® He 
went on to urge that the situation would justify the use of some 


*It actually used up over $2,800,000—- 5 Jenkins, John S., Life of Silas 
Alexander, II, 60. * Hammond, III, 415. Wright, I, 172 fi. 


50 THE BARNBURNERS 


part of the revenues upon the unfinished sections of the canals, 
which otherwise must stagnate, to the injury of great sections. of 
the state. This was a most plausible and winning argument, 
especially since it was evident that much dissatisfaction existed over 
the idle canals, and the competition of the railroads had not yet 
begun to be felt.® 

Taking advantage of this sentiment, Seymour framed and safely 
guided through the legislature a bill which authorized the Canal 
Board to direct the completion of certain parts of the canal work 
as the public interest required, and to pay for these, if they were 
not interpreted as “repairs,” out of any surplus revenues of the 
canal system. It also directed specifically the completion of two 
of the projects named by Governor Bouck in his message of 1843.° 
The Radicals complained against this as an entering wedge in the 
encouragement of promiscuous canal extension. “They were, how- 
ever, powerless to withstand the eloquence of Seymour’s logic and 
the cleverness of his management, coupled with the influence of 
the state administration. ‘The measure, whose triumph was the 
first long step toward making Seymour the leader he afterward 
became, passed the Assembly by 29 majority, and the Senate by 4. 
‘Those numbers were almost identical with the majority of Whig 
members voting ‘aye,’ which shows that the Democrats were divided 
almost exactly equally between the two factions.* 

This canal battle and other contests made the legislative session 
of 1844 no less exciting, though perhaps less acrimonious, than the 
stormy session of the year before. ‘There was distrust, among 
both factions, of the aims of their rivals. When a debt-paying 
resolution was adopted in the Assembly, Flagg, while rejoicing in 
its success, questioned the good faith of the Hunkers who voted 
for it and prophesied vengeance on them if his suspicions should 
be correct. The Hunkers, on their part, accused the Barnburners 
of playing politics for the benefit of their leaders. Zealous Demo- 
crats in other parts of the state, who were not attached to either 
faction, became impatient and apprehensive under the long con- 
tinuance of the fighting at Albany. Judge Vanderpoel reported 


® Hepburn, 60. ayes, 12 noes; Assembly, of 38 noes, 4 

*See above, p. 35. were Whigs. 

®The vote stood: Senate: Dem., 12 °Van Buren Mss., XLIX, 11451-52; 
Letter of A. C. Flagg, March 24, 1844. 


SEYMOUR’S CANAL BILL 51 


to Van Buren on April 13th that “Mr. Wright says things at 
Albany are in a bad way. ... They have not yet appointed a 
committee to draft an address. . . . I wish John was home; we 
want him at Albany.’*® When the omission in regard to the ad- 
dress was rectified, it revealed that the split was considerably wider 
than the year before. “Twenty-one Barnburners refused to sign 
the address drawn up, on the ground that it declared that ““Wm. 
C. Bouck has adhered with fidelity to the sound policy which has 
ever characterized Democratic administrations, and has advanced 
the state in a career of safety and honor.”** Judge Hand, of 
Washington County, in despair wrote to Van Buren: “At Albany 
all was confusion. . ..I was there at the adjournment... . 
Confidence seems now all gone. Our best men despair. . . . Your 
own nomination is in the natural order of things, I take it, unless 
fooled away by the folly of the New York Democracy. We 
may all have our opinions as to the griefs [sic], wrongs, principles 
and positions of both parties claiming to be the democracy of this 
state; now for me I deem these differences as partaking more of 
personality than of principle.”** But neither his expostulations nor 
his recommendations could stay the storm, whose approach had 
already shattered the harmony which the ex-President, for reasons 
of his own, had so keenly sought.** ‘The situation was well 
summed up by the veteran Democrat, General Jacob Gould, who 
wrote to his chief: ‘““There is not only no harmony, but no 
cordiality . . . while such men as ex-Gov. Marcy, Gov. Bouck, 
Croswell, Corning et al., on one side, and Flagg, Hoffman, Young, 
McGowen on the other, are with their particular friends and all 
over the state doing all they can to annoy each other.”** When 
the votes were counted, the remarkable result appeared that, of all 
the ninety-odd Democrats of the warring Assembly, only one was 
reélected! Is this an indication that Judge Hand’s conclusion 
was correct, or does it rather show that neutrality was at that time 
an essential to election? 


1 Tbid. Van Buren Mss. XLVIII, 11364; 
4 Hammond, III, 433-434. Reply of A. C. Paige to Van Buren. 
“Letter of A. C. Hand, May 11, 4 Thid.. XLIX, 11520-21. 


1844; Van Buren Mss., L, 11738-39. 


CHAPTER VI 


THE CAMPAIGN OF 1844 


S the letters indicate, the state political situation at that time 
was secondary, in the thoughts of political observers, to 
the very interesting and delicate situation in national poli- 

tics. The stormy administration of President Tyler, sneeringly 
called by his opponents the “constitutional fact,” was drawing to 
a close, and it was quite apparent that his persistent efforts to build 
up a following strong enough to secure a renomination would fail. 
Men who associated with him or accepted appointments from him 
were tabooed, as in the case of George B. McWhorter, collector 
of the port of Oswego.* Memories of the campaign of 1840 
were still keen; and the friends of the two rival leaders whose 
hopes had been thwarted in that sensational year looked forward 
to 1844 as the day of recompense. 

In the Democratic ranks, Martin Van Buren had been constantly 
pushed as the “logical candidate,’ and with such success that his 
claims were almost universally recognized. From all parts of the 
Union came expressions of sympathy, admiration, and support. It 
was natural to expect that his own state would lend the “Sage of 
Lindenwald” its solid support; and very few were the voices in 
New York that ventured to object. “There were some;” but they 
found it very hard to secure solid ground on which to base their 
objections. As early as 1842, Van Buren had been warned in a 
letter from ex-Governor Throop*® that Marcy was coquetting with 


1 Wright wrote to Van Buren ‘“Mc- 


George W. Clinton. Publications of 
Whorter has paid too dear for his 


Buffalo Hist. Soc., XIX, 161 ff. 


whistle,” and, “You had better not cor- 
respond with him if you can avoid it.” 
Van Buren Mss., XLVI, 10927. 

?In Buffalo, for example, the weak 
Democracy had been made even weaker 
by the establishment of a factional paper, 
the National Pilot, edited by B. A. Man- 
chester in the interest of the anti-Van 
Buren men, whose leader there was 


On the other hand, in Goshen, the 
Van Buren men started a rival paper to 
the pro-Calhoun Independent Republican, 
and secured for its editor Dr. T. W. 
Donavan, formerly in the Patent Office, 
but discharged by Tyler. Van Buren 
Mss., XLVIU, 11202. 

° Van Buren Mss., XLIV, 10376. Let- 
ter from Paris, Sept. 27, 1842. 


THE CAMPAIGN OF 1844 53 


the opposition; but nothing was openly said of it by either of the 
principals.. Many of the Conservatives, too, were secretly dis- 
affected, on account of the ex-President’s Independent Treasury 
policy and his tariff views. But only a very few went to the length 
of arranging meetings in the interest of the candidacy of John C. 
Calhoun or Richard M. Johnson;* and this was done with no 
serious hope of accomplishing anything locally for those candi- 
dates. Almost without exception, the Democratic newspapers of 
the state carried Van Buren’s name at the head of their columns; 
all seemed well with New York. 

In view of what happened four years later, it is interesting to 
notice here that most of the New Yorkers who were unfriendly 
to Van Buren at this time were men associated with the Radical 
side. The reason probably was, that they regarded him as still 
being what for many years his critics had asserted him to be, a time- 
server, without deep convictions. “The Radicals were convinced by 
this time that they were the guardians of a lofty principle and that 
that principle was in danger. ‘They applied the rule that ‘they who 
are not with us are against us.” Thus, Hoffman, writing to Flagg 
on September 10, 1843, says bitterly, “In 1840, conservatism de- 
feated Mr. Van Buren, but from the tone of the resolutions in Col- 
umbia’ and at Syracuse he seems to rely upon his old destroyer. . . . 
Radical Democracy [is] angry, sore and disappointed because Con- 
stitution and Reform have been smothered in Albany and buried in 
Columbia County.”* Fernando Wood, on February 20th previous- 
ly, had testified: ‘“[They [the Calhoun men] say confidentially that 
there are nearly 50 members of the New York legislature who 
will refuse to [support? ] Mr. Van Buren . . . , being for either 
Mr. Wright or Mr. Calhoun. ‘They have received information 
from Albany that the radical disaffected democrats are very hostile 
to Van Buren and can by judicious management be won for Mr. 
Calhoun.”* Also, among the names signed to a Calhoun circular 
sent out from New York City on December 6th [1843], appeared*® 
the name of F. Byrdsall, the sympathetic historian of the Loco- 
focos, a radical of the radicals. 


*Van Buren Mss., XLVI, 10878-79. county. 
Letter of Thomas M. Carr, May 15, ° Flagg Mss., Hoffman Letters. 
1843. 7 Van Buren Mss.. XLVI, 10771-72. 
5 Columbia was Van Buren’s home - 8 [bid.. XLVII. 


54 THE BARNBURNERS 


Besides Calhoun, who presently withdrew, and Johnson, there 
remained Buchanan, Cass, Marcy, and Woodbury, nominally rep- 
resentatives of the North, but conciliatory in a high degree to 
those Southern interests which had usually been dominant in previ- 
ous conventions but which were now threatened with opposition 
from the awakening sectional consciousness of the North. “The 
air was full of intrigue and opportunities for deals and combina- 
tions. Almost the only influences tending to check internal strife 
were hatred of Tyler’s designs and ambitions, and fear of the 
success of Clay, who was sweeping all before him on the Whig 
side. 

Into the midst of this atmosphere of uncertainty and strife there 
fell, barely six weeks before the day set for the National Con- 
vention at Baltimore, a bombshell in the shape of a letter written 
on April 20, 1844, by Van Buren to Congressman Hammit of 
Mississippi, in reply to a letter of inquiry sent by the latter, a month 
before. In this reply, Van Buren stated openly and without eva- 
sion that he was opposed to the annexation of Texas, a measure 
then under hot discussion by Congress and generally favored by 
the bulk of the party, particularly in the South. In response to 
similar inquiries from Hammit, Cass and Buchanan had avowed 
their support of the annexation scheme, and had thereby obtained 
preference over Van Buren for Southern support. In the mass 
of discussion of Van Buren’s letter to Hammit, every circumstance 
connected with it, from his reasons for writing it when it was not 
absolutely necessary, to the particular advantage taken of it by his 
enemies, has been minutely examined. All investigators are agreed 
that the publication of the Hammit letter marks the turning-point 
in Van Buren’s efforts to reach the White House a second time. 
From that moment, it became imperative upon the annexationists 
to secure the nomination at Baltimore of another than Van Buren, 
all the more so as Clay also had repudiated the Texas project, yet 
seemed certain of the Whig nomination, as indeed the event proved. 

Already at the time his letter was published, Van Buren had 
been assured of a majority of the delegates, through instructions 
issued to them in his behalf by the conventions which chose them. 
There remained to his opponents, in this desperate predicament, 
but one promising recourse to thwart his success, and that lay in 


THE CAMPAIGN OF 1844 55 


forcing the re-adoption of the “two-thirds rule,” first adopted by 
the convention of 1832. ‘The convention met at Baltimore on 
May 27th, and the eyes of the whole country centred upon it, 
to the exclusion even of the proceedings of Congress, which con- 
tinued in session, but a few miles away. ‘The first surprise to the 
Van Buren men came when Hendrick B. Wright of Pennsylvania 
was chosen chairman, and the convention was organized in the 
interests of the “‘allies.’ “Thus the opponents of Van Buren were 
called because, while dividing their votes among so many candi- 
dates, they were united in working against the favorite. ‘The real 
fight was upon the adoption of the two-thirds rule, for it was 
abundantly clear, as a shrewd observer” later reminiscently declared, 
that “at no time did Van Buren have a chance to obtain two-thirds 
of the total vote.” In spite of this evident fact, enough of Van 
Buren’s majority deserted him to assure the adoption of the fatal 
rule by a vote of 148 to 118. The loyalty of the 63 instructed 
Van Buren delegates who voted for this is certainly open to sus- 
picion; the inference seems clear that they were simply seeking 
a convenient loophole to escape the consequences of nominating a 
man whose views were so distasteful to a large section of the party. 

When the balloting began, Van Buren led all the candidates by 
a comfortable margin, Cass being second, But, with each suc- 
ceeding ballot, his margin declined, until, on the fifth ballot, Cass’ 
vote exceeded his own. ‘Then the Van Buren managers, chief 
among whom was Benjamin F. Butler, realized the impossibility 
of what a few weeks earlier had seemed a certainty, and saw that 
they had been outgamed by the cunning devices of master politi- 
cians. ‘They began to think of using the power which Van Buren 
had expressly put in Butler’s hands by a letter authorizing the 
withdrawal of his name “whenever it shall be found necessary 
to do so to promote the interests and secure the harmony of the 
great democratic party of the Union.”’® Butler next tried to get 
Wright nominated, but Wright’s friend, Judge Fine, declared that, 
if Wright’s name were presented, he would read a letter from 
Wright declining, and saying that “his [Wright’s] views on all 
questions” —evidently including Texas—“entirely concurred with 


* George Bancroft, who was present as ” Hammond, III, 462. 
a delegate from Massachusetts. 


56 THE BARNBURNERS 


> ae Pe mt 


Van Buren’s. Thwarted thus by Wright’s loyalty to his friend, 
the Van Buren managers turned to James K. Polk of ‘Tennessee, 
previously a candidate for vice-president, and known as a friend 
and well-wisher of the New York leader. Polk was unanimously 
nominated on the ninth ballot, as a result of Van Buren’s with- 
drawal in his favor. ‘The “allies,” in great exultation over this 
favorable outcome of a long doubtful issue, threw a sop to Van 
Buren in the form of a plank in the platform lauding the record 
and services of “‘our distinguished leader, ex-President Martin Van 
Buren.” They could well afford this act of grace, for all the 
substantial spoils of victory were theirs—a candidate from their 
own section, openly pledged by letter to support annexation, and 
a resolution pledging the party to uphold the same course. 

The convention fight had been won by the South; but the elec- 
tion was still to come. ‘There the most popular man and the most 
magnetic campaigner in the country was still to be encountered in 
the person of the Whig idol, Henry Clay; and to defeat him, 
every element of party strength must be conserved. To add 
strength to the new ticket, therefore, the second place on it was 
overwhelmingly and enthusiastically bestowed upon New York’s 
other and not less popular favorite, Silas Wright. Wright’s lofty 
character and great ability were universally known; and moreover, 
he had for three years been the personal and political representative 
of Van Buren at the national capital. ‘The intercourse between 
the men was of the closest nature; their copious correspondence 
reveals an identity of interests and ideals, fully confirming Wright’s 
above quoted words to Fine. “I am, upon almost every day, risking 
your standing and fortunes, in a public sense, upon my own judg- 
ment,’’? wrote the Senator to Van Buren, on one occasion; and 
again, “I did feel for a while almost entirely alone, but Fairfield 
and King** are now my cabinet, and I can assure you they are com- 
ing to be a unit.”** Sometimes, in distrust of his own foresight, he 
would warn Van Buren that “most likely I shall one of these days 
by some bungling movement, or wrong vote, or in some other way 


“Letter of Butler to Wright, written 3 Preston King. Wright praised King’s 
from New York City, May 31, 1844; political judgment highly. 
Van Buren Mss., LI, 11849-51. Van Buren Mss., XLIX, 11509. 


™ Ibid., XLVI, 10767. Letter of Feb. 
7, 1843. 


THE CAMPAIGN OF 1844 57 


break your neck and destroy your future prospects.”*° But at 
least the chief could rely upon the absolute faithfulness and high- 
mindedness of his friend. 

When Van Buren’s defeat did come, none was quicker to under- 
stand it or more sincere to regret it than the Senator. As soon 
as the information reached him that his own elevation was pro- 
posed, after his friend’s disappointment, he instantly rejected the 
imminent honor of the vice-presidential nomination, even as his 
friends had done for him with the presidential. ‘To make his 
resistance effective, he had to send King and another on a hasty 
and arduous night journey to Baltimore, for he learned that 
Butler, whose management at the convention had not been of the 
best, had accepted the nomination for him, in spite of his written 
instructions.*® On the announcement of Wright’s withdrawal, the 
convention reassembled in obvious disappointment, and _ selected 
Dallas, of Pennsylvania, for vice-president. 
| As New York’s delegates returned home, they brought with 
them and diffused throughout the party a sense of discontent and 
injustice that boded ill for future party welfare. They held the 
‘two-thirds rule undemocratic—a clever device for defeating the 
will of the party masses. One sentiment especially found root in 
their minds, and that was a desire for vengeance on the “allies,” 
and, above all, on Cass, who had so nearly become the beneficiary 
of the “treason” practised on New York’s favorite. Men like 
James S. Wadsworth, who were not in Baltimore, found it hard 
to understand the sudden shift in events and breathed revenge on 
Cass and on all who had aided in his schemes.*’ We shall see 
their resentment taking active shape, four years later. 

The next current to be noticed in the sea of New York Demo- 
cratic politics was the inception and growth of a demand for the 
substitution of Wright for Bouck as candidate for governor. 
Bouck himself desired a renomination, and party precedent seemed 
to require that he be given one. It was not until the spring of 
1844 that the mutterings of discontent against him threatened to 
eventuate in anything serious. But then letters began to come in, 
declaring that Bouck could not be reélected; in some counties, it 


% Thid., XLIX, 11444. Van Buren Mss., LI, 11858-59, 
* Flagg Mss., Wright to Flagg, June 11863. Letters of Wadsworth and 
8, 1844. Tracy: 


5 


58 THE BARNBURNERS 


was alleged, he could not obtain a fourth of the party vote; in 
the interests of harmony he should withdraw. ‘The only other 
name mentioned was that of Wright. But, when Wright heard 
the suggestion, he discouraged it'* emphatically and, as he thought, 
effectually. “The proposal to nominate Wright was started ap- 
parently by men who opposed Bouck politically because of the 
mistakes and conflicts of his administration, and these men as we 
have seen were Radicals. 

On some points of principle, Wright was in sympathy with their 
views; but the mildness of his native temper forbade his expressing 
himself as harshly as did Hoffman and, to a less degree, Flagg. 
When first the talk for Wright began to be heard, it was espec- 
ially embarrassing to Governor Bouck’s friends, since Wright was 
not an avowed candidate—indeed was known to be averse to the 
nomination, and hence any vigorous opposition to his name might 
be construed as a gratuitous assault upon an unoffending man. 
. Nevertheless, Governor Bouck wrote to Wright in April offering 
to withdraw in his favor, but Wright declined. Still the Wright 
‘boom’ continued, fostered by the 4zlas and by complaints from 
Cayuga, Tompkins,” and other counties, that his nomination was 
necessary; and, after the Baltimore convention, it obtained unex- 
pected and weighty accessions of strength. “These were from the 
former opponents of Van Buren, friends of the new national 
ticket, who rightly feared and sought to overcome the weakness 
of that combination in New York. ‘They boldly went to Wright 
and urged upon him that it was his duty, though it might not be 
his pleasure, to make the race for governor, to save New York to 
the national ticket and thus ensure its success. “This was an argu- 
ment especially calculated to appeal to Wright, who was a party 
man of the strictest sort. Personally, his inclination was all for 
remaining at Washington. In the atmosphere of the senate cham- 
ber, he was thoroughly at home. He had made an excellent record 
there, and would have asked nothing better than to remain. More- 
over, he knew well the atmosphere of politics at Albany, and he 
dreaded it. 


But all these personal considerations he felt must be laid aside 


% Van Buren Mss., XLIX. * Ibid., Letter of G. D. Beers of 
Ithaca. 


THE CAMPAIGN OF 1844 59 


at the need of the party that had honored him, and this he ad- 
mitted to his interviewers. Efforts were now made to induce 
Bouck to withdraw, in the interest of harmony. But the Governor 
believed his dignity would not permit, at so late a period. He 
persisted as a candidate before the state convention, and in con- 
sequence was shelved by a vote of 30 against 95 for Wright. 
Addison Gardiner of Monroe County, an esteemed leader of 
Radical sympathies, received the nomination for lieutenant-govern- 
or. ‘The campaign that followed was cne of the fiercest ever yet 
fought in the state or throughout the nation.”? The nomination of 
Wright seemed to be justified by the result, which was his election 
by 10,033 plurality, while Polk defeated Clay in the state by only 
5,000. Van Buren’s friends triumphantly pointed to this as proof 
positive of the feeling of Northern Democrats toward the work 
of the Baltimore Convention, praised the self-sacrificing Silas 
Wright, and continued to lay plans for the future justification of 
Van Buren. In these plans, Van Buren himself had little share. 
He seemed to feel instinctively that the failure of his party to 
avenge his rejection in 1840, and even more, his alienation from 
the party on the important issue of annexation put an end to all 
serious likelihood of his again leading the Democratic hosts in a 
national campaign; and he devoted himself more and more to a 
life of dignified retirement on his farm at Lindenwald. 


7 Joseph Stringham, in his reminis- conductor who was to wave a lantern 
cences of early days in Buffalo, tells how, from his passing train if Polk’s majority 
on the night of election, Albert H. in New York City exceeded 3,000. “Of 
Tracy, Dean Richmond, Philip Dor- Silas Wright’s election by about 5,000 we 
sheimer, and other leading Democrats of were satisfied.” Publications of Buffalo 
Buffalo, gathered in the Courter office, Hist. Soc., ut supra. 
to await the signal of a friendly train 


CHAPTER VII 


ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNOR WRIGHT 


HILE the career of Van Buren was thus closing, that 

of Silas Wright seemed about to enter upon a new 

and more conspicuous phase. Wright brought to his 
unsought-for post of the governorship a reputation for spotless 
integrity which afforded no vulnerable point for his enemies to 
attack; a record of statesmanship at which none might cavil; and 
a native ability and force of character which rendered it certain 
that he would handle the delicate problems of the state adminis- 
tration in accordance with sound principles of economics and gov- 
ernment. ‘ Having been for so long out of touch with state affairs, 
he was obliged to rely largely upon information sought from his 
friends, and these, as we have seen, were chiefly drawn from the 
Radical ranks. Among them was Flagg, with whom he corre- 
sponded regularly and in whose judgment he placed implicit con- 
fidence. ‘This circumstance naturally made the Hunkers dubious 
as to Wright’s impartiality, and they prepared to protect their own 
interests if need should be. 

‘The inaugural message of the new Governor was a far different 
paper from those of his predecessors. It was a long and elaborate 
state paper, dealing fully and in a straightforward fashion with 
all the most pressing political questions of the day. Nearly two- 
thirds of it was devoted to the discussion of the canal situation, 
with which Wright had been rather familiar ever since the time 
of his report to the State Senate in 1827. After reviewing the 
history of the canal work down to 1838, he discussed the new 
financial policy adopted upon the accession of the Whigs to power, 
in that year. He then stated the unfortunate results of that policy 
and the necessity for the law of 1842. He eulogized the beneficent 
results of that law, and recommended its strict maintenance and 


*Thus, on the propriety of resigning governor, he took Flagg’s advice; see 
his senatorship while making the race for Flagg Mss., Sept. 25, 1844. 


WRIGHT’S ADMINISTRATION 61 


enforcement. He stated the two pending proposals for constitu- 
tional amendments growing out of the situation, and recommended 
their approval by the legislature. He analyzed the condition of 
the state debt, declaring that the charges against both the general 
fund and the canal fund were excessive and should be relieved. In 
the remainder of the message, he treated of the anti-rent difficul- 
ties, the educational system, and other current questions with frank- 
ness and cogency, and bespoke the codperation of the legislature. 
The message was received by Democratic organs, both within and 
without the state, with praise; its tone was declared most admirable. 


Said the Argus, 


There is a prevailing tone about this great state paper which cannot 
too frequently be called to mind, and that is its high moral tone. After a 
careful reading of Gov. Wright’s message, all will see with proud satis- 


faction that every measure he approves, he approves because it is just and 
right.? 


Nevertheless, it was at once apparent that the two factions within 
the party were very much alive, and very little inclined to reconcilia- 
tion. ‘The legislature contained, in the Senate, 28 Democrats, 3 
_ Whigs, 1 Native American; in the Assembly, 68 Democrats, 44 
_ Whigs, 16 Anti-Renters and Native Americans. The first fight 
came over the selection of a speaker of the Assembly. Although 
Horatio Seymour, who had drawn up the celebrated canal report 
of 1843, was the most experienced man on the Democratic side, 
and a man of recognized ability, his report and his active partisan- 
ship made him offensive to the Radicals, who therefore presented 
William C. Crain, of Herkimer, as their candidate. After a fight 
much hotter than usual, Seymour won the nomination, 35 to 30, 
whereupon all the Radicals supported his election. In. the upper 
house, too, the factions were very evenly balanced. During the 
whole session, indeed during Governor Wright’s term, their atti- 
tude of jealous watchfulness persisted, the Hunkers seeing in every 
move of the Governor and his friends a desire to “play politics” 
and make Mr. Wright the party nominee for president in 1848. 
The Radicals, for their part, were equally convinced that their 
opponents were mischievously embarrassing the State Administra- 


2 Argus editorial, Jan. 14, 1845. 


62 THE BARNBURNERS 


tion, in the interest of national politicians, and aiming to upset the 
retrenchment programme of 1842.° 

In this factional quarrel, the National Administration professed 
to be absolutely neutral. President Polk had been an associate 
of Governor Wright, when the latter was in the Senate; and he 
was a sincere admirer of the New York statesman.* He had been, 
also, as we have seen, in sympathy originally with the effort to 
renominate Van Buren. He had expressed his regret at the failure 
of that effort in the following language: “With yourself? I had 
regarded the nomination of Mr. Van Buren as morally certain. 
You are right, therefore, in supposing that I had not the slightest 
knowledge or agency in the events that led to a different result.” 
Nevertheless, on the issue of ‘Texas annexation, which had predeter- 
mined those “events,’’ Polk was thoroughly Southern in sympathy. 
The President-elect acknowledged his great obligation to New 
York for its deciding vote in his favor, and planned to reward it, 
after the customary fashion, by appropriate appointments. 

On December 7, 1844, Polk wrote to Wright in tones of the 
highest esteem, saying ‘‘You are the first and only person to whom 
I have given an intimation of my wishes on the subject of the 
cabinet.”® He offered him the post of Secretary of the Treasury, 
on the ground that he considered that post likely to be, during this 
administration, more important even than the State portfolio. In 
his reply,’ Wright discussed frankly not only his own situation, but 
that of the party in New York. He expressed the belief that Gov- 
ernor Bouck had made a mistake in choosing his friends. He 
added that he—Wright—was selected to replace Bouck for the 
sake of harmony within the state; therefore he could not resign — 
without bad consequences, arising from suspicion of bad faith. He 
attributed his running ahead of Polk in the state’s vote to support 
given him by Whigs in New York City who wanted a safe financial 
policy, hence no great expenditures for canals. He thought, on 
the other hand, that “you received more votes from members of 


® Hammond, III, 511-512. 5 Ex-Congressman Kemble; letter from 
4“? have no doubt that Wright is his Columbia, Tenn., dated July 31, 1844, 
personal preference for the succession. now in possession of Gouverneur Kemble, 
He told me that he thought Mr. W. ‘the Esq. 
first man in the country for any place in * Gillet, Ransom H., Life and Times 


it”? O’Sullivan to Van Buren, March’ of Silas Wright, I, 1631. 
28, 1845. Van Buren Mss., LII, 12265. 7 Ibid., 1633 ff. 


WRIGHT’S ADMINISTRATION 63 


the [Democratic] party than I did, because some of our canal 
counties cut me off to some extent, though less than I expected.” 
Wright’s whole letter breathed a spirit of conciliation and of con- 
fidence in Polk which he was destined later to lose.° 

The President-elect also wrote to Van Buren, both on account 
of his presidential experience and his party position, and sought 
his advice as to appointments. Van Buren, taking the request seri- 
ously and sincerely, replied, ““You did as I would have done in 
offering to Mr. Wright the Treasury instead of the State Depart- 
ment.” He then proceeded strongly to recommend Butler for 
the State portfolio, because of his tact; and said he had already 
urged him [Butler] to consider it. ‘For the Treasury Depart- 
ment his pursuits have not adapted him; he would certainly not 
take it,*° nor could I advise him to do so.” He recommended 
Flagg or Cambreleng for the Treasury post. ‘‘Flagg’s reputation 
in this state stands higher, I think, as a financier, than that of 
any man who has ever gone before him .. . in redeeming the 
finances of the state, he has unavoidably brought himself in con- 
tact with the contractors on the public works, and they may unite 
with the late governor and his friends [to oppose the nomination | 


. . . Wright made the same recommendations as did Van 


Buren. 

But Polk soon learned—what Van Buren probably knew—that 
the appointment of those men would arouse bitter opposition.” He 
proposed instead to make Butler Secretary of War; and, upon the 
latter’s declining it as too much out of his sphere, Polk evidently 
felt himself discharged from further responsibility to Van Buren 
and his friends. Dismissing Flagg and Cambreleng from con- 
sideration as having only provincial reputation,’” he passed outside 
of New York for incumbents of both the coveted positions. At 
the same time, he bestowed the War portfolio, soon destined to be 


so prominent, upon William L. Marcy, whose sympathies were 


8 On March 12, 1847, he wrote, “May 
God send the country safe deliverance 
from this frightful crisis when imbecility 
and roguery hold sway,” etc. Flagg Mss. 

*Draft of letters of Jan. 18, Feb. 2, 
1845; Van Buren Mss., LII. 

But a little later Van Buren com- 
plained that Polk should have offered it 


anyway; and Butler would have taken it. 
Van Buren Mss., 12197, 12228. 

4 Letter of O'Sullivan, March 28; also 
Hammond, III, 533. Cave Johnson said, 
“Calhounism and Cassism threatened 
open war.” 

2 Tetter of Polk to Van Buren, March 
1; Letter of O’Sullivan, ut supra. 


64 THE BARNBURNERS 


well known by the Van Burenites to be with their rivals. “Gov. 
Marcy stands—in reputation out of New York—next to Mr. 
Wright and Mr. Butler, and as far as I am informed accords with 
me in my political principles,”** Polk explained. ‘This whole proce- 
dure humiliated and irritated Van Buren as intensely as anything 
could affect one of his urbane temper. ‘The most annoying ele- 
ment in the situation was the report transmitted to him by his son 
Smith, who made a special trip to see Polk and present a remonstra- 
tory letter, which the new Executive, according to Smith’s story, 
scarcely deigned to read. “He kept me waiting, without opening 
the letter, which he kept turning over in his hand. I told him I 
would give him a résumé of it. He regretted that he had not got 
it sooner. . . . I fear he is completely captured by the rogues.” * 

But, while Polk could not see his way to accepting Van Buren’s 
and Wright’s recommendations for his cabinet, he did bestow several 
prominent positions upon adherents of their side. He named Gen- 
eral Jacob Gould of Rochester, United States Marshal; and 
William F. Allen of Oswego, United States Attorney for the 
northern district of New York.*® ‘The Hunkers were also vexed 
by the selection of Michael Hoffman to be Naval Officer of the 
Port of New York. ‘This appointment Benton attributes*® to the 
personal acquaintance Hoffman had formerly enjoyed with Polk 
while both were in the House of Representatives; and, considering 
Hoffman’s unusual qualifications, it may well be that Polk made 
this as a personal selection. Finally, the President prevailed upon 
Butler to accept the post of United States Attorney for the southern 
district of New York, and upon Cambreleng to become Minister 
to Russia. Both of these were respectable posts, but, Van Buren 
thought, far below the men’s deserts, and an affront to himself. 
He was convinced that he would have little influence with the new 
administration, and he fell into a state of mind calculated to enter- 
tain, as we shall see, suggestions hostile to the administration and 
to party harmony. In his letters to Polk, during this time, the ex- 


% Letter of Polk to Van Buren, March am, I confess, utterly at a loss to account 


1, 1845. for it, after the almost positive assurances 
14 Letter of Smith Van Buren, Feb. 27, I received when at Washington. The 
1845. Van Buren Mss., 12228-29. most natural supposition is that my sin 
% For the latter position George W. was anti-Van Burenism.” O’Reilly Mss. 
Clinton had been a candidate, and he now * Benton, 335. 


wrote, “This result is mortifying, and I 


WRIGHT’S ADMINISTRATION 65 


President had discussed the factional issues in New York frankly 
and without withholding names, and he doubtless regretted having 
spoken so freely when he saw Polk inclined to slight his advice. 
The Radicals of New York generally believed*’ that Polk’s course 
in the matter was insincere and shifty, and that his offers to Wright 
and Butler of positions which he must have known they would not 
accept were mere political tricks intended to save him from the 
charge of partiality, of which, nevertheless, they held him to be 
actually guilty. 

Before this matter was settled, a still more vexatious contest 
arose within the state itself, which pitted the two factions against 
each other and aroused rivalries and heartburnings of the same 
kind as those that had come out in the state printership fight, but 
of greater violence. When Wright was nominated for governor, 
he had resigned from the senatorship, and about the same time his 
colleague, Senator ‘Tallmadge, had also resigned to accept appoint- 
ment as governor of the Territory of Wisconsin. To fill these 
vacancies, Governor Bouck had named his colleague, Lieutenant- 
Governor Dickinson of Broome County, and Henry D. Foster, 
the former senator for Oneida. Both of these men were Hunkers; 
and as the time drew near for the new legislature to reélect them 
or designate their successors, the 4z/as and other Radical organs 
began to attack their political records. Foster’s record, in particular, 
was subjected to harsh criticism. ‘This led to spirited defense by 
his friends; but eventually Foster’s name was withdrawn in the 
interests of harmony. ‘That this hope of harmony was not realized 
appears from the fact that thereafter Cassidy, the caustic editor of 
the Azlas, took malicious delight in referring to the late appointee 
as “‘ex-temporary Foster,” and that Foster’s friends in Oneida retal- 
iated on Governor Wright at the first opportunity by converting 
a favorable majority of 821 in that county in 1844 to a majority of 
1337 against him in 1846.** 

The Radicals presently united upon John A. Dix as their candi- 
date to replace Foster, and, realizing their inability to defeat Dick- 
inson, planned to force a postponement of the election for the six- 
year term until after March 4th. By that time they confidently 


7 Statement issued by Van Buren, May 8 George W. Smith Mss. 
3, 1848. Van Buren Mss., LIV, 12782. 
Stanton, 82. 


66 THE BARNBURNERS 


expected to enjoy the prestige of being the representatives of the 
National Administration through their leaders whom Polk should 
place in the Cabinet. “The caucus was called to meet on the 18th 
of January; and, on the 16th, Butler wrote to Van Buren, “I 
could personally have no objection to either Dickinson or Foster, 
provided Dix or some other fit man of the other faction be appointed 
with him; but the appointment of two from the same side of the 
house was a palpable violation of justice. ... If so, the division 
in our ranks which under any circumstances must ultimately take 
place will be hastened”’;*® and on the next day Wright expressed 
himself similarly: “I hope the result of the caucus this evening will 
be no worse than Dix and Dickinson. It certainly cannot be 
better,” and I have yet some fears it may be the very worst.” 
The caucus met as scheduled, with 93 members in attendance. 
Senator Porter, a Radical, called the caucus to order, and presented 
Senator Denniston of the same faction, as chairman. The motion 
being made to proceed to the nomination of two United States 
Senators, Senator J. C. Wright, a Hunker, moved an amendment 
that three should be nominated, viz., one to fill out Silas Wright’s 
unexpired term, four years; one to fill out Senator Tallmadge’s 
unexpired term, about six weeks; and one to succeed Senator Tall- 
madge for the ensuing six years. ‘This precipitated a hot fight. 
Charges of ‘snap caucus,’ ‘unconstitutionality,’ and ‘trickery’ were 
hurled back and forth. Eventually, the amendment was put, and 
carried by 47 votes to 46. The caucus then nominated John A. 
Dix, Radical, for the four-year term, he receiving 51 votes to 41 
for Judge Samuel Nelson, Hunker.** They next nominated Sen- 
ator Dickinson, Hunker, to fill out the unexpired six weeks term, 
he receiving 66 votes to 13 for Michael Hoffman, and 14 scatter- 
ing. The Radicals then tried to force an adjournment, and, amid 
scenes of turbulence and parliamentary filibustering, the meeting 
was nearly broken up.??_ The chairman, although a Radical, over- 
ruled his associates’ dilatory motions and, after every resource was 
exhausted, Dickinson was nominated for the six-year term also, 
receiving 54 votes to 19 for Hoffman, and the rest scattering or 


Van Buren Mss., Lil, 12146-47. *. See Appendix I. 

The italics are ours. * Argus, Jan. 20, 1845. 
*° That is, the Radicals were not strong 

enough to nominate two. 


WRIGHT’S ADMINISTRATION 67 


silent. ‘The customary motion to make the nomination unanimous 
was lost by the objection of Senator Johnson, who hotly declared 
that the nomination had been procured by unfair and undemocratic 
tactics. It was asserted that 38 members refused to vote on this 
motion, but probably a number had gone home. A few days later, 
in the legislature, the nominations were ratified by election; and, 
the heat of discussion having abated somewhat, every Democrat, 
even Johnson, supported both nominees. During the discussion 
over the matter, it is significant that some Radical papers, such as 
the New York Evening Post and the Mohawk Courier, expressed 
the opinion that the action of “King Caucus” was not binding in 
this case, and this was denounced by the Argus, as “‘factious and 
dangerous.”** It was rumored at the time that some of the Radi- 
cals were in favor of uniting with the Whigs, who proposed to 
help them send Samuel Young to the Senate; but this move, if it 
actually started, was promptly quashed, either through Governor 
Wright’s intervention or, as Hammond says, by Colonel Young; 
himself.** ‘The spirit of faction was not yet so bold. 

When the election of state officers came up, even more striking 
evidences of division appeared. Successors were to be chosen to 
five Radicals, three of whom were Flagg, Young, and John Van 
Buren. ‘The Hunkers demanded half of these offices, but pre- 
sented no candidate against Flagg, on account of his great record. 
They came within one vote of defeating Van Buren, and did 
capture the three other nominations, including that for Secretary 
of State, which Young lost by two votes. It was believed that 
their course was dictated by a desire to be revenged for the active 
campaign the state officers had made against Seymour a few weeks 
earlier. It is probable that they had a more practical object than 
that; namely, to get control of the Canal Commission, which 
consisted of these five officers and the Lieutenant-Governor. A 
study of the provisions of the Seymour law, passed the year before, 
will show that the execution of them, and consequently the whole 
canal policy of the state, depended upon the personnel of that Com- 
mission. 

When the legislature came to take up the work of legislation, 


Argus, with quotations; Jan. 25, 74 Hammond, III, 530. 
1845. 


68 THE BARNBURNERS 


the canal question, so prominently treated by Governor Wright, 
naturally received much attention. The policy of the Hunkers 
prevailed, and, in accordance with the views of Speaker Seymour, 
a bill passed both houses—by the willing support of the Whigs— 
carrying an appropriation of $197,000 for the extension of canal 
work, and making only partial provision for the redemption of 
the principal part of its debt. In view of the Governor’s previously 
expressed views on retrenchment and safety, it should not have been 
a surprise when, on the same day, he returned this bill with his veto, 
justified in a long message evidently prepared beforehand,” ampli- 
fying his previous arguments. “The Hunkers, however, were 
enraged, and charged that five Radical senators had stayed away 
from the final vote so that the bill might pass and give Governor 
Wright a chance to veto it and thus show himself to be a Radical. 

Coincident with this was the consideration of six proposed con- 
stitutional amendments—the first and second of which would take 
from the legislature the power to increase the state debt and require 
an affirmative popular vote before appropriating any money for 
public works not immediately of a revenue-producing nature. The 
motive underlying these amendments was, as Hoffman had tersely 
put it, “not distrust of the people, but distrust of the legislature.” 
As far back as 1842, that leader had written that if the legislature 
persisted in voting money for public works without making exact 
provision for its repayment, he would go for a constitutional con- 
vention.** ‘This now appeared to be inevitable, the only alternative 
being for the legislature to submit, and the people to approve, indi- 
vidual amendments settling the controverted points. ‘To this course 
there were serious obstacles. First, the issue that had brought on 
the ‘“‘People’s Resolution” was still far from being overwhelmingly 
decided in favor of either side; and, second, there were many 
other articles in the Constitution of 1821 that were being severely 
and widely criticised. Among these were the judiciary clause and 
the one on qualifications of electors. It was generally felt that 
the time was ripe for a thorough revision of the instrument of 
government by a body specially chosen for that purpose. 

Taking advantage of this sentiment, John Young, the shrewd 
leader of the Whigs in the lower house, introduced there a bill 


* Hammond, III, 556. 8 Also, see above, 44. 


WRIGHT’S ADMINISTRATION 69 


providing for a constitutional convention in the summer of 1846. 
At the same time, he marshalled his party associates to oppose the 
ratification of the two amendments that Governor Wright had 
recommended with such confidence. ‘This solid vote of the Whigs, 
added to that of the conservative Democrats, speedily killed the 
amendments, and served the double purpose of widening the breach 
in the ranks of the majority and making the convention inevitable. 
Young next turned to the Radical Democrats; and, by their help, 
he put through both houses, against the strongest opposition that 
Seymour and the other Hunker leaders could furnish, a bill for 
the convention introduced by Mr. Crain, Radical. The Hunkers 
generally disbelieved in a convention, holding that the proper 
remedy for constitutional defects was through action of the legis- 
lature, which indeed was the only course authorized by the Consti- 
tution then in force.*’ Moreover, they declared that, if a con- 
vention were to be called, it ought first to be after a majority vote 
of the people, and second, that all amendments it might propose 
should be voted on separately. ‘They fought hard to amend the 
convention bill along those lines, but failed; and so, on its passage, 
every vote cast against it—33 in the Assembly and 14 in the Sen- 
ate—was cast by a Hunker.” 

Governor Wright perceived that the situation had drifted into 
an impasse, from which there was no likely escape except by the 
decision of the people; so he approved Crain’s bill, and the people 
approved it in the ensuing November. It is quite possible that the 
Governor did not appreciate at the time the result that later appeared 
so clearly. It was inevitable that the success of Young’s tactics for 
a convention would make him a most prominent figure in the pub- 
lic eye, demonstrating his ability as a political tactician by the same 
process that revealed the discord in his opponents’ ranks. Never- 
theless, both factions to this discord felt justified by the course of 
events in the policy they pursued, and of course it is possible to 
argue that either course might have succeeded equally, had public 
sentiment been united. 

When the legislative session of 1845 at length drew near its 
close and the question arose as to the nature of the address to be 
issued in accordance with long-established party custom, it was 


7 Lincoln, II, 210. * Hammond, III, 544, 554. 


70 THE BARNBURNERS 


found that the clever strategy of the Whigs, coupled with the 
unprecedented series of defeats to party measures, had so widened 
the cleavage in the party ranks that it was impossible to unite on an 
address to the people. Each side blamed the other for this failure; 
and each charged, with perfect truth, that the other had made com- 
mon cause with the enemy on important measures. 

Scarcely had the legislature adjourned when the Radical mem- 
bers issued an address to the people, summing up the situation as 
they saw it, and especially justifying their action in supporting the 
bill for a convention. ‘They maintained that the party policy on 
public works had been settled by the law of 1842 and should be 
rigidly adhered to, under every consideration of common honesty 
and public safety. “They denounced the attempts made by the 
Hunkers to amend the convention bill, as showing distrust of pop- 
ular rule. The address was signed by forty-three members, and 
its publication aroused further recrimination, and added another 
brand to the fire of discord. 

The election of delegates in the spring of 1846 to the Constitu- 
tional Convention was conducted not along party lines, but rather 
to secure men of fitness for the approaching task. ‘The same spirit, 
fortunately, was present in the organization and deliberations of 
the Convention. Men prominent in both the Democratic factions 
were conspicuous in the Convention, as ex-Governor Bouck and 
Samuel Nelson of the Hunkers, and Michael Hoffman and Church- 
ill C. Cambreleng of the Radicals. As a whole, the latter element 
had somewhat more influence there, owing, probably, to the fact 
that they had earlier been consistent advocates of a convention. To 
Hoffman was given the honor of drafting the very important finan- 
cial section of the new constitution, and naturally he incorporated 
therein, in no uncertain terms, the provisos and prohibitions attached 
to the “People’s Resolution.” ‘The strength of his work was tested 
and triumphantly sustained, a few years later.” 

The elections in the fall of 1845 resulted in a Democratic gain 
of six members in the lower house and a loss of three in the upper. 
The Radicals gained considerably on their rivals, sending Colonel 
Young to the Senate from the fourth district, and getting a large 


In May, 1852, when the Court of canals to be unconstitutional. Alexander, 
Appeals held the Whig law authorizing II, 163. 
the loan of nine million dollars for 


WRIGHT’S ADMINISTRATION PA 


majority of the Democratic assemblymen, thereby being able to 
elect Mr. Crain speaker at last. The party dissensions, Hammond 
thought, were still disregarded by “the mass of Democratic voters, 
who were little disposed to take either side.”*® But this did not 
hold true in Oneida and Otsego counties, where the regular tickets 
were beaten, through disaffection. “These counties were seats of 
long-standing resentment against the recent financial policy of 
the Democratic administrations, both state and national. It was 
hinted that the politicians of Oneida were more concerned for 
their own interests than for the party’s claims of popular service. 
Said the Jefferson County Democrat, a Radical paper of Water- 
town, enraged over the loss of a senator in the Jefferson-Lewis- 
Oneida district: 


There now remains little doubt of a Whig majority in this district of 
200 to 500... . Oneida, conservative, bargaining, self-seeking Oneida 
has, under the influence of the corrupt clique which contro] that county, 
gone over to the enemy.*? 


It is interesting to note that at this time the extreme Radicals 
began to try to transfer some of the opprobrium attaching to the 
name of the old Albany Regency, to Croswell and his friends 
among the new state officers. “Thus, the New York News said: 


In connexion with the central bank power at Albany, the “Oneida 
Clicque,” more generally known as the Albany Regency, ruled the state 
for years. Their control was complete and effectual. No appointment 
was made contrary to their wishes—no bank chartered, in the profit of 
which they did not share—no measure of internal improvement passed 
until their interest had been consulted in the arrangement of its route 

. the ascendancy of Conservatism, staggered in 1837, was finally 


and, we trust, forever overthrown by the election of Silas Wright as 
governor.°? 


But the News’ trust in the power of the Governor and his friends 
was not to be justified. 

Two contests between the factions marked the legislative ses- 
sion of 1846. One of these shows the beginning of their adher- 


®° Hammond, III, 556. * Quoted in Jefferson County Demo- 
31 
Jefferson County Democrat, Nov. 13, crat, ut supra. 


1845. 


72 THE BARNBURNERS 


ence to different national principles, while the other illustrates the 
rivalry growing out of personal quarrels. ‘This legislature assem- 
bled at a time of keen excitement growing out of the tense situa- 
tions in Texas and in Oregon with the anxiety arising out of the 
possibility of war. 

Scarcely was the Senate called to order when the first contest 
occurred. Senator Jones, a Hunker, offered a set of resolutions 
approving all the policies of the National Administration, including 
the annexation of Texas. His object in doing this was believed 
to be to strengthen the hands of the Hunkers by making Marcy 
and Dickinson, their representatives at Washington, the peculiar 
friends of the President. Senator Porter, Radical, promptly moved 
amendatory resolutions omitting all reference to Texas. ‘This led 
to a prolonged and warm debate, not upon the merits of the ‘Texas 
question, but upon the loyalty and justification of the public course 
of the leading men of the two factions, particularly Colonel—now 
Senator— Samuel Young. Aside from Colonel Young, who replied 
to his assailants with a freedom of expression and fiery invective 
of which he was a master, the special object of the Hunker attacks 
was Preston King, the congressman from St. Lawrence, who had 
broken away from the Administration on the Texas question. As 
King was known to stand close to Governor Wright, the exposure 
of his ‘errors’ was valued by Wright’s opponents as a blow at the 
Governor. ‘“The debate,” says Alexander, “indicated that the — 
Free-Soil sentiment had not only taken root among the Radicals, 
but that rivalries between the two factions rested on differences 
of principle far deeper than canal improvement.”’** 

The other contest arose out of an attempt to remove Croswell as 
state printer. Ever since his notable contest with Van Dyck, in 
1843, Croswell had been the particular aversion of the Radicals. 
The latter believed they had at length attained the strength and 
enough support of public opinion to venture upon his removal. It 
was charged that his terms for doing the state’s work were exorbi- 
tant, and a bill was introduced directing the Senate Committee on 
Finance to ascertain what the proper cost of such documents should 
be, and to let the work henceforth to the lowest bidder. At the 
same time, a bill was brought into the Assembly naming William 


%3 Alexander, II, 102. 


WRIGHT’S ADMINISTRATION fi, 


Cassidy, of the Az/as, as state printer. “To forestall defeat, Cros- 
well now induced his friends to amend the Senate bill so as to 
abolish the office of state printer; and, despite the futile rage of 
the Radicals, who well understood that it was not economy but 
desire to save his prestige that lay back of Croswell’s self-sacrificing 
attitude, the bill passed; and, after it became a law, Croswell bid 
to print the state notices absolutely free, and of course won. 


CHAPTER Vill 


THE OVERTHROW OF SILAS WRIGHT 


HE rapid progress of the Mexican War, with its inevitable 
making and unmaking of official reputations, marked the 
summer of 1846. In addition, the bickering over public 

policies, the adoption of a new tariff, the sitting of the closely- 
watched Constitutional Convention, and the regular biennial cam- 
paign for governor and congressmen, made this summer one of 
the most exciting, politically, in the history of the state. The main 
issue was the reélection of Governor Wright, which was fore- 
seen, long before the election, to present a difficult problem. ‘The 
Governor’s friends were divided upon the advisability of his becom- 
ing a candidate for reélection. Said Nathaniel Benton, ‘After 
the development of the difficulties in the Democratic party in the 
state, and they had sufficiently shown themselves prior to the elec- 
tion of 1844, to satisfy any considerate man that a disruption was 
at hand, which must soon overwhelm any man occupying the execu- 
tive chair, I objected to and advised against his acceptance of the 
office... . Mr. Wright had other friends who did not hesitate 
to express their opinions on the subject.”* But the greater number 
of the Governor’s intimates professed to expect an easy victory, and, 
whether they really did so or not, were indignant at suggestions of 
his withdrawal in the face of factional opposition. “The Governor 
took the same view, and presented himself to the state convention 
for a second time. He was renominated by a vote of 112 to 14,” 
despite the repeated and strenuous warnings of Hunker papers like 
the Utica Observer, New York Globe, and Norwich Journal * that 
he was not the proper man—warning which the Whig Democrat 
Journal of Kingston later* recalled with grim satisfaction as “surely 


* Benton, 276. Wyoming counties. Crocker of Oneida 
*The 14 were divided as follows: 2 objected to making it unanimous. Adlas, 
from Allegany, 2 from New York, 2 Oct. 10, 1846. 
from Saratoga, 4 from Oneida, 1 each * See Appendix II. 
from Broome, Cattaraugus, Warren, and *Nov. 8, 1846. 


THE OVERTHROW OF WRIGHT 75 


not treacherous . ..a timely and a friendly warning.” The 
convention was called on to decide contests from Albany and 
Oneida counties,” and, in the former, seated the Aélas delegates 
—including William Cassidy and Peter Cagger—by 77 votes to 
44, Lieutenant-Governor Gardiner was cordially renominated. 
‘The convention then adjourned to present its work to the people; 
and, in this task, it found serious obstacles to encounter. ‘The 
summoning of the Constitutional Convention had, indeed, relieved 
the party of much of the burden incident to the decision of the 
state’s financial policy, but there was suppressed resentment at the 
Governor’s endorsement of the “Whig manoeuver” that lead to 
that convention; and the policy adopted there was doubtless fore- 
seen and opposed by those who implicated him in it. Again, there 
was an uncomfortable feeling that the partisans of the Polk admin- 
istration were more than indifferent to Governor Wright’s success, 
since that would be interpreted as a vindication of that leader’s views 
and a tribute to his personality, making him a conspicuous candidate 
the following presidential election. Other causes of friction that 
seemed likely to militate against the Governor were unpopular 
nominations for minor offices, his stern handling of the anti-rent 
disturbances, and his upholding of the much-criticised Canal Board. 
Under these dubious circumstances, the fight was waged against 
the united and militant Whigs, who, as had been anticipated, chose 
for their standard-bearer the resourceful John Young, who was 
almost in a position to make his own issues. “The actual campaign 
was short® and rather lifeless, at least on the Democratic side. 
There was much interest manifested in the result; and many observ- 
ers discovered, some little time before election day, that Wright’s 
success was doubtful. Marcy wrote to his brother-in-law, Newell, 
on September 27th, “Tallmadge said . . . that the Whig 
ascendancy would be sustained in New York; it is quite evident 
they mean to make a vigorous effort, but, if they are met by a like 
vigorous effort on the part of the Democrats all will be well.’’ 
Newell assured him in reply that all was well;*® evidently Newell 
was a poor observer. Wright himself was less sanguine. As two 


®In those two counties, and also in * Wright was renominated on Oct. Ist. 
Madison, a fusion was effected later, by 7 Marcy Mss., XII, 34803. 
dividing the candidates for assembly and 8 Tbid., 34812. 
county offices. Atlas, Oct. 16, 1846. 


76 THE BARNBURNERS 


years earlier, in a speech at Malone,’ he had hinted at elements 
that would threaten his reélection, now he thought he saw those 
elements at work. On October 14th, he wrote to Van Buren, 
“From all I can see, I incline to think that the leading conserva- 
tives are determined to make what opposition they can. I infer 
this from the fact that they all predict defeat, and that the first- 
class leaders are professing friendship, but constantly fault-finding, 
while the second-class are open mouthed in opposition.”*® Hoff- 
man reached the same conclusion.** Wright thought there would 
be a chance if the Anti-Rent vote could be divided; but he would 
not compromise his principles to do so,” and therefore failed. 

The election bore out the worst fears of the Democrats. Young 
defeated Wright by 11,572, while Gardiner, endorsed by the Anti- 
Renters, won by 13,357.7° Wright’s vote for governor fell off 
nearly 54,000 from that of two years before, and was even less by 
many thousands, than the Democratic vote cast for the same office 
in 1842 or in 1840. The total vote for governor was 100,900 
less than in 1844, which led some critics to conclude that ‘‘amidst 
this mass of intrigue, there was no great principle at stake.”** 

The Democratic majority was reduced in the Senate and wiped 
out in the Assembly, while the Whigs elected 23 congressmen out 
of 34, thus helping them to get control of the national House of 
Representatives. ‘The new constitution was overwhelmingly car- 
ried, so everybody received some consolation. 

Governor Wright’s defeat plunged the party as a whole into 
despondency; and indeed, to one viewing only his splendid career 
and unquestioned ability, the great obligations under which he had 
placed his party by his unselfishness in 1844, and the prestige that 
would naturally follow a party waging a victorious war, it would 
have seemed incomprehensible that such a leader, under such 
circumstances, could have suffered such a fatal overthrow. ‘The 
explanation is to be found in the combination of discordant events 
that we have just been considering. 


*Gillet, Life and Times of Silas 2% He refused to promise pardon to 
Wright, II, 1592; see Alexander, II, 82, their convicted members; Young did so. 
121. 8 Civil List, 166. 

Van Buren Mss., LIII, 2482-83. 4 Democratic Review, Dec. 1846. 


"Flagg Mss., Hoffman Letters. Let- 
ter of Nov. 1, 1846. 


THE OVERTHROW OF WRIGHT 77 


What were Wright’s own views as to the importance and causes 
of his overthrow? The result itself was not a surprise to him; for, 
a few days after the election, he wrote to Van Buren, “I can say 
to you with perfect truth [I feel] no shock of disappointment.”” 
He regretted the disaster to the party more than his own elimination 
from public life, and expressed an eager desire to work in the ranks 
for the restoration to power of the organization that had so signally 
honored him.*® ‘The decisive cause of his defeat, he thought, was 
the opposition of the “Conservatives,” i.e., the Hunkers, which 
he had been led to expect from the course followed by the Argus 
and the Utica Observer, their leading organs. 

His friends and followers took largely the same view, but added 
local causes and opposition of the “Federal crowd.” Cambreleng 
wrote to Van Buren, “He [Wright] had everything to contend 
with—first, Polk, Marcy, Cass & Co., and their treacherous crew; 
second, Anti-Renters; third, the license law; and fourth, generally 
the most unpopular and worthless nominations on our part... 
the New York custom house, through its penitentiary nominations 
reduced Wright’s plurality over Young 5000 in that city... 
we reduced our majority in this county [Suffolk] at least 400 votes 
by two very bad nominations.”*’ ‘Tilden, in his report to the Utica 
convention of two years later, charged that the “‘disastrous defeat” 
of 1846 was due to the Hunkers.*® 

Not agreeing with these conclusions, Marcy, who was suspected 
of being secretly well pleased with the result, wrote to his friend 
Wetmore: 


This is a sad result. One that I feared, but yet hoped otherwise. 
Within my memory we never had a more disastrous overthrow 
in New York. ... A long train of events has led to the result, and 
he had very little discernment who did not see troubles ahead. I take 
consolation, perhaps I might say credit, to myself for having at an early 
date, when the thing was practicable, done al] I could to avert the threat- 
ened catastrophe—but it has been permitted to come upon us and those 
who suffer are most to blame for what has happened—a presumptuous 
Phaethon has undertaken to drive the horses of the sun. 
Now we are to have a season, I presume, of crimination and recrimina- 


Van Buren Mss., LI, 12490. Van Buren Mss., LIII, 12495-96. 
Letter to Judge Fine, Nov. 8, 1846; Letter of Nov. 30, 1846. 
quoted in Hammond, III, 757. *% Tilden, Samuel J., Public Writings 


and Speeches, I, 234. 


78 THE BARNBURNERS 


tion—and there is danger that existing animosities will thereby become 
still more inveterate. Would each party . .. become sensible of its 
own errors . . . we should soon rise from our fall.?® 


Marcy’s expectation was fulfilled by a flood of conflicting ‘ex- 
planations’ that only aggravated the condition they were intended 
to explain. Chief among these explanations was a remarkable 
series of articles that appeared in the Atlas, the Radical organ, 
during the month of December, 1846, and was reprinted in pamph- 
let form for general distribution. It was later asserted that the 
author of these articles was no other than Governor Wright him- 
self; and indeed, in the systematic method of their presentation, its 
reénforcement with figures, and the exhaustive nature of its argu- 
ment, there is much to remind one of Wright’s best efforts. 

The Azlas articles’ take up in succession the various causes con- 
tributing to the result, beginning with Anti-Rentism shrewdly 
seized upon by the Whigs to help them locally, proceeding through 
discontent with the canal and bank policies, and concluding with 
the opposition of the 4rgus and its friends, whom the author identi- 
fies with the Conservatives. Among these are named Senators 
Chamberlain of Allegany, J. C. Wright of Schoharie, Scovil of 
Lewis, Mitchell of Montgomery, and Clark of Washington coun- 
ties. Chamberlain represented a county which Governor Wright 
had been fearful of two years before,”* and where his veto of the 
canal bill had been particularly obnoxious. J.C. Wright and Clark 
will be remembered as Samuel Young’s assailants in the legislature. 
There were, said the Az/as, strong conservative organizations in 
Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Chenango counties, where there 
was a Democratic loss of 4168 votes in two years. Saratoga county 
was also conservative; and there had been bolting by prominent 
individuals in Herkimer, Chemung, and Steuben. ‘Thus it was 
demonstrable that the blame for the reverse rested upon the Hunkers, 

The irritation produced by these articles was great; and, to fan 
the flames, their publication was almost insisted upon by the Radi- 
cals. Party papers that refused to print them were denounced as 


® Marcy Mss., XII, 34859-60. Let- “anticipated a breeze in Allegheny Co.,” 

ters of Nov. 5, and 7, 1846. but would answer inquirers that he stood 
” Causes and Consequences, passim. upon the Act of °42. Van Buren Mss. 
*1Hfe wrote to Van Buren that he 


THE OVERTHROW OF WRIGHT i 


in sympathy with the authors of the defeat. In Buffalo, the 
Courier, the highly-respected organ of the party, declined them as 
requiring too much space and productive of too little good. ‘The 
chairman of the Erie County Central Committee urged the paper 
to consent; and, upon its continued refusal, a new paper was started 
which did print them. Like action was threatened elsewhere. On 
the other hand, many “presses” were glad to publish them.” By | 
such proceedings, the factional feud, hitherto largely confined to | 
Albany and Oneida counties, rapidly spread throughout the state. — 

To counteract the Radical charges, the Hunkers brought for- 
ward their own explanations. Most of them attributed the dis- 
aster solely to the power of the Anti-Rent vote; others alleged the 
unpopularity and unwisdom of some of the Governor’s appoint- 
ments; all united in denying with great show of indignation the 
charge of treachery to the state ticket on the part of the Conserva- 
tive friends of the National Administration. Evidence was adduced 
to show that in Erie County and other sections where the local 
organizations were in the hands of the element supposed to be 
hostile to the Governor, the party had done nearly as well as in 
1844, while in sections which his friends had controlled the show- 
ing was disappcinting. “We have yet to see,” said a correspond- 
ent of the Argus, “that those who boasted that they were the special 
friends of Gov. Wright did any effective work in his behalf; we 
know on the contrary, that in this vicinity the men who disapprove 
of some of his most notable official acts bent every effort to loyally 
support him.”’* From this it was but a step to charging that the 
Radical element itself was most responsible for Governor Wright’s 
defeat. And, finally, it was boldly asserted that, far from Wright 
having pulled the national ticket through to victory in 1844, he 
had in fact been saved by that ticket from his own defeat, but 
that he could not justly presume on such salvation a second time. 
Letters sent from Washington to the federal office-holders in New 
York just before election were cited to prove the good faith of 
the Administration.” 


"The Atlas names the following: 
Jefferson Co. Democrat, St. Lawrence 


the Wayne Sentinel, which said “We be- 
lieve and know for the most part that 


Republican, Ontario Messenger, Cayuga 
Tocsin, Troy Budget, N. Y. Evening 
Post, Ulster American, Mohawk Courier, 
Utica Democrat, Niagara Cataract, and 


its statements are true.” 

*8 Argus, Feb. 4, 1847. 

74 Stanwood, 229. But see in refuta- 
tion, Hammond, III, 696. 


80 THE BARNBURNERS 


The weight of evidence seems to sustain the contention of the 
Radicals that their factional opponents were willing to see Wright 
sacrificed, and that to that end they deliberately ‘cut him’ while 
supporting the rest of the ticket. An instance of this, so striking 
that it evoked special comment from a Whig paper,” is shown in 
the vote of the town of Western, Oneida County. The result 
there was in part as follows: 


For Whig Vote “Loco” (Democratic) 
Governor 266 37 
Senator 64 271 
Congress tbe 306 
Sheriff 70 266 


from which it appears that more than six-sevenths of the Demo- 
cratic voters in that town cut Wright’s name! While this was 
an extreme case, it differed only in degree from many others,”® 
which, taken together, caused the heaviest suspicion to rest upon 
the Hunkers. The falling off from the vote of 1844 was too 
great to be otherwise accounted for, and the many irritating epi- 
sodes of his eventful term furnished ample predisposition to such 
action by Wright’s opponents. President Polk himself seems to 
have believed it, for he wrote in his diary: “The Hunkers seem 
to have been guilty of disloyalty to Mr. Wright; henceforth, that 
faction shall receive no official countenance from me, if I can 
help it.”?* If Polk needed any confirmation of his suspicions, 
such was not long wanting; for, during the succeeding session of 
Congress, he was told plainly that the feeling of New York 
Democrats was that Cabinet intrigues were to be blamed largely 
for the recent disaster. In the papers of Congressman Kemble, 
there is recorded a ‘‘note of a conversation” with the President, 


dated Jan. 9th, 1847, in which the topic is discussed as follows: 


. the vote upon the tea and coffee duties was not given in con- 
formity with the real opinion of the northern Democrats, but to show 
their want of confidence in the Secretary of the Treasury,?* who had 
recommended it, and who had lost the good opinion of the northern 


*® Utica Daily Gazette, Nov. 5, 1846. a Democratic majority of 144 in the 
See the total result for Oneida Co., spring was changed to a Whig-Anti-Rent 
above, p. 65. Also, in Fulton, Schoharie majority of 38 in the fall. 
Co., the home town of Wright’s pred- 7 Polk’s Diary, entry for Nov. 5, 1846. 
ecessor and opponent, ex-Governor Bouck, * Robert J. Walker of Mississippi. 


THE OVERTHROW OF WRIGHT 81 


democracy. . . . He [Polk] said it was the first information he had re- 
ceived of such a feeling existing, and that he could not account for it. 
I told him that the democrats of New York attributed the loss of 
Governor Wright’s election to Walker. He said that no man had been 
more desirous of seeing Mr. Wright re-elected than himself, that he 
considered himself allied to the real democracy of the country, and 
that he had always been opposed to Mr. Foster and his clique; that this 
subject had been discussed in a cabinet meeting, and that every member 
of the cabinet knew his opinions. I told him that I did not doubt them, 
but the fact was, that nine-tenths of all the postmasters, and two-thirds 
of all the government officials had been opposed to Mr. Wright at the 
last election, that’? the most of them had been selected from that very 
clique to which he had alluded, and that others had followed as a matter 
of course. He said that Mr. Johnson was a true friend of Gov. Wright. 
I told him I believed that, and [that] both himself and Mr. Johnson 
had been deceived—but such were the facts. He said that a postmaster 
from Montgomery county had been removed because of his hostility to 
Mr. Wright. I answered that it would require a great many removals 
to convince the democratic party in New York. He then alluded to the 
appointment of Gov. Bouck.*® I told him that it was an unfortunate 
one. He said he was now convinced that it was so. . . . Mr. Buchanan 
and Mr. Walker came in, and our conversation was changed.** 


As further evidence of the President’s desire at this time to be at 
least impartial as between the New York factions, we have his 
statement to Mr. Kemble, just a few days later®” than the preceding: 


He also authorized me to say to the friends of Mr. Wright that he 
would make no nomination to office in the state of New York without 
consultation with Mr. Dix.** 


At the same time, Polk “complained of Rathbun and Preston 
King; the first had never come near him—the second had given 
him no opportunity to converse with him; Mr. Dix could not 
understand their course.”** 

Yet another widely operating cause for the overthrow was the 
general decline of party discipline and loyalty at this time, in which 
the Radicals, as well as their opponents, shared. ‘The Ulster 


®T.e., because. 22 Monday morning, Jan. 11, 1847. 
%°'T> the position of Receiver of Pub- 83 Mss. in possession of Gouverneur 
lic Money, in New York City. Kemble, Esq. 


*1 Mss. in possession of Gouverneur 
Kemble, Esq. 


82 THE BARNBURNERS 


Republican, one of the papers which printed the 47/as articles, de- 
clared editorially: 


It cannot be denied that the landmarks of party have been entirely 
lost sight of in the county and congressional nominations—that there was 
a complete dissolution of the political elements, and that in almost every 
county in the state prominent Democrats of both sections of the party 
have disregarded the great principle of union. . . . Where the “Hunkers” 
had the ascendancy in the nominating convention, the opposite section 
of the party cast their votes against the candidates, and where the “Barn- 
burners” had the control, the opposite faction turned against the whole 
ticket.*4 


A notable instance of a Hunker bolt of this character occurred 
in Herkimer county—“‘ironclad Herkimer,” as Hoffman used to 
call it. James M. Gray obtained the Democratic nomination for 
sheriff by a small majority, after a hot contest, and in the con- 
gressional convention for the Herkimer-Montgomery district, 
Abraham Van Alstyne was nominated by the casting vote of a 
member whose object, his enemies said, “was to present the man 
who could be most easily defeated at the polls.”*? Both candi- 
dates were Radicals, so the Hunkers bolted, and, combining with 
the Whigs, elected William I. Skinner as sheriff, and General 
George Petrie as congressman.*® On the other hand, in Jefferson 
county, Orville Hungerford, who had played a prominent part 
in the retiring congress, was a candidate for reélection, and received 
the nomination by 6 majority over a Radical, Lysander H.+ Brown. 
‘Thereupon, enough Radicals supported Joseph Mullen, the Whig 
candidate, to secure his election by 44 majority.*° These facts 
supplied both sides with plenty of ammunition for the ‘crimination 
and recrimination,’ which Marcy had expected. 

The efforts of conciliatory politicians to suppress the fruitless 
discussion proved unavailing, and it waged with unabated fury 
during the spring and summer of 1847. Wright himself took 
no part in it beyond the share he may have given to the preparation 
of the Aztlas articles. He retired to the seclusion of his backwoods 


“Ulster Republican (of Kingston), in Papers read before the Herkimer 
Nov. 11, 1846. County Historical Society, II, 420 ff. 

5 Renton, 277. 7 George W. Smith Mss. 

* See “Address by Hon. Robert Earl,” 


THE OVERTHROW OF WRIGHT 83 


home, and from there wrote with his usual good nature and meth- 
odical attention to detail of his difficulties in resuming the long- 
interrupted routine of his rural duties, and of the characteristic 
happenings of country life. This quiet alteration of his previous 
busy career may have produced depression and physical degenera- 
tion all unsuspected. At any rate, the statesman’s rest was rudely 
interrupted by the sudden stroke of a grave malady, and on the 
morning of August 28, 1847, the community and the whole state 
were shocked to hear that Silas Wright was dead. While his 
plain townsmen were paying him the last honors of a simple funeral, 
messages of sympathy and regret poured in from every corner of 
the Union, testifying to the remarkable hold he had upon public 
esteem.** His death, however, did not assuage the turmoil started 
by the circumstances of his defeat. His followers declared that 
his pride had been wounded, and his heart broken by the treachery 
of those who owed him so much, and from that time on they 
spoke constantly of his assassins. In the state convention at Utica, 
the following month, a speaker remarked the necessity of doing 
justice to Wright’s memory. To this a Hunker delegate slight- 
ingly answered, “It is too late to talk of doing justice to Mr. 
Wright; he is dead”’; whereupon, James S. Wadsworth of Genesee, 
springing upon a table, replied in tones that made the ceiling ring, 
“Tt may be too late to do justice to Mr. Wright; but it is not too 
late to do justice to his murderers!”” 


Irving Bacheller’s novel The Light sonality in a pleasing way. 
in the Clearing presents the traditionally Stanton, 159. 
well-established picture of Wright’s per- 


CHAR TERIAL 


THE RADICALS AND FREE SOIL 


T was during the years 1846-47 that the Radical movement 

came to be closely connected with another movement, which 

was to furnish it with an issue that would soon raise it to 
the dignity of a distinct party and increase its importance in Ameri- 
can political history far beyond what it otherwise would have 
attained. “The Wilmot Proviso, first introduced into Congress in 
August, 1846, and again brought up and persistently pressed at 
the following winter session, afforded a practical test of every 
man’s position on the vital subject of the extension of slavery 
into the territories. A “cloud no bigger than a man’s hand” was 
gathering on the horizon, and serious thinkers already perceived in 
it the rising of a mighty storm. To its opponents, Wilmot’s 
amendment was an odious irritant to tender sensibilities, a useless, 
because unconstitutional, attempt to upset the compromises upon 
which the government was founded, and a wedge that would split 
the Democratic party and thus destroy the most unifying institu- 
tion in the country. 

It was Congressman Preston King, who represented Wright’s 
own district in Congress, who made the matter acute by introducing 
a bill appropriating $2,000,000—1ater increased to $3,000,000, 
whence the name “Three Million Bill’—under the conditions of 
the Wilmot Proviso. In his speech on the subject, he bluntly 
stated his purpose to “‘have the free principle of the Wilmot proviso 
enacted into law whether this bill passes or not. ‘The time has 
come when this republic should declare by law that it will not be 
made an instrument to the extension of slavery on the continent 
of America.”* He added: ‘False and recreant to his race and 
to his constituency would be any representative of free white men 
and women, who should by his vote place free white labor upon 
a condition of social equality with the labor of the black slave; 


* Quoted in Hammond, III, 705 ff. 


THE RADICALS AND FREE SOIL 85 


equally false would be he who, upon any pretense, should, by in- 
action and evasion of the question, produce the same degrading 
result.” ‘These bold words were a direct challenge to all Northern 
men to take sides upon the issue, and many resented King’s stand. 

The House of Representatives passed the Three Million Bill, 
with the Proviso, by 131 to 104, every Democrat from New York 
except one—Congressman Strong, who represented the Tioga- 
Chenango-Broome district—voting aye.” Congressmen King and 
Grover took part in the debate on the affirmative side, and Strong 
on the negative. In his speech, afterward explained in a letter 
to his constituents,* Strong, after reaffirming his devotion to the 
cause of freedom, explained his position to be that the Proviso 
was an unnecessary and mischievous interference with the treaty- 
making power which the government was attempting to exercise 
in the face of a foreign war, and that its supporters thereby gave 
an impression of divided sentiment and so encouraged our national 
enemies. He had much to say of the similar though more repre- 
hensible conduct of the “blue light Federalists’ during the War 
of 1812. In short, he declared that national loyalty forbade the 
Proviso. 

Then, turning to the action of his colleagues, Strong gave a 
searching examination of the “Secret Circular of 1844,” in an 
effort to prove party disloyalty upon the pro-Wilmot men. ‘This 
circular was a paper gotten up directly after the nomination of 
Polk by a few of the ardent Van Buren men in New York, and 
by them sent out very quietly to a select list of those who were 
supposed to sympathize with them.* It regretted the nomination 
of Polk as imperilling the interests of the North, and questioned 
whether it would be best to support him. It finally expressed the 
conclusion that the best policy would be to support Polk, but, at 
the same time, to work for the nomination and election of con- 
gressmen who would oppose “the new and untenable doctrines” 


In the Senate, Dix voted for the 
Proviso, and Dickinson against it, a 
significant difference. 

* Reprinted in the Argus, March 13, 
1847. 

*Those who signed it were George P. 
Barker, John W. Edmonds, Theodore 


Sedgwick, William Cullen Bryant, D. D. 
Field, Thomas W. Tucker, and Isaac 
Townsend. Among those who received 
it were Flagg, Hoffman, King, Samuel 
Young, Addison Gardiner, John Tracy, 
Jabez D. Hammond, and MHarmanus 
Bleeker. 


86 THE BARNBURNERS 


of the annexation resolutions. To this course of action the men 
addressed were invited to subscribe and to unite in a circular to 
secure its execution. It appeared, however, that the response was 
not gratifying, and that the attempt was quietly dropped. When 
Strong’s charges were made in the House of Representatives, Con- 
gressmen King and Grover promptly rose to disclaim any connection 
with the object of the circular, thus showing that the desire for 
party regularity was still paramount. Strong nevertheless pressed 
home his point, that the men who now advocated the Wilmot 
Proviso were, almost without exception, men who either shared 
in the authorship of the Secret Circular or had been the recipients 
of it. He undoubtedly foresaw, what a few months would make 
clear to all, that differences in principle would lead to different 
courses of action in party affairs. 

The Secret Circular, which had been printed and promoted by 
the New York Evening Post, and had been noticed only by politi- 
cians before, now attained general notoriety; and efforts were 
made to cast odium upon its sponsors and, so far as possible, upon 
those to whom it was addressed. “The Norwich Journal, published 
in Congressman Strong’s home county, declared it to have been a 
“fraudulent movement, to procure the nomination and election of 
members of congress, who would defeat a prominent measure on 
which their election was based’’;° and added, “‘the very steps they 
are now taking in relation to this Wilmot Proviso through their 
representatives in Congress are the same which have marked the 
victims of disappointed ambition in this state, for the last half 
century. No sooner do prominent Democratic politicians prepare 
for desertion than they commence by abusing the South.” 

But the mass of the Democrats of New York as represented 
by their legislators approved of the Proviso and, probably, of King’s 
attitude. On motion of Samuel Young, strong resolutions approv- 
ing King’s stand were carried through the legislature. 

Only three Democrats in the Senate, and nine in the Assembly, 
voted “‘no.”° The argument started there was carried throughout 
the state. In Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse, the matter came 
before the county conventions. In Buffalo, action favorable to 


® Quoted in the Argus, March 3, 1847. | was Flanders, of Franklin, a Radical. 
° Atlas, Feb. 2, 1847. Among them 


THE RADICALS AND FREE SOIL 87 


King was taken. In Rochester, the convention voted down the 
resolution commending him by a vote of 28 to 4. This led to 
an angry discussion as to the character of the meeting, the Radicals 
asserting that it was packed with office-holders and also remarking 
that only 32 delegates voted, out of 139." The Onondaga County 
convention in Syracuse resolved, on February 3d, that “the affairs 
of the general government have been conducted upon sound prin- 
ciples and to the entire satisfaction of the Democratic party, by 
our present able chief magistrate’ [Polk]; and that “we deeply 
deplore the dissensions that exist among us in this state, which if 
fomented and encouraged, must inevitably lead to disastrous re- 
sults. We therefore unhesitatingly and decidedly declare our 
opinion, that he is an enemy to his party and his country who 
encourages these dissensions, or in any wise serves to perpetuate the 
odious names and distinctions which corrupt politicians for selfish 
purposes have introduced among us.”° It has already been re- 
marked that Onondaga County was one where the Hunkers con- 
trolled the organization. 

It now came to be known that ex-President Van Buren held 
views favorable to the Wilmot Proviso. ‘This revelation came 
through letters written by him to men whom he was in the habit 
of communicating with on party matters, such men as Flagg, 
Francis P. Blair, and others. When the news became known, it 
produced a general feeling of surprise. It was said that there was 
nothing in the ex-President’s official conduct or public utterances 
that would lead to the supposition that he would support such a 
radical measure. His Northern critics, indeed, alleged that, during 
his presidential term, he had shown no disposition to thwart the 
will of the slave-holders. Hence, they argued, he must now have 
some motive other than devotion to principle. Could this be re- 
sentment against his successor in the party leadership, coupled per- 
haps with a desire to win back his old position in 1848? 

Without seeking to minimize the possibility of Van Buren’s 
entertaining resentment—for he certainly had reason to feel that— 
it is not necessary to suppose that this was the origin of his Free- 
Soil principles. Van Buren was a Northern man and withal a 


7 Argus, Jan. 25, 1847; Atlas, Feb. 2, 8 Argus, Feb. 15, 1847. 
1847. 


88 THE BARNBURNERS 


man of wide travel and experience, including residence in slavery 
environment. He had been able to perceive the full effects of 
the “peculiar institution,” and had had ample leisure to reflect upon 
it, and to devise a course of conduct. He perceived the political 
predominance of the Southern element. Wilmot was one of his 
party followers, and had connection with him through mutual 
friends. ‘Thus, nothing would be more natural than to find Van 
Buren supporting the new policy. As for personal ambition, 
there is nothing to prove that Van Buren at any time seriously 
entertained hope of regaining his lost preéminence.2? He knew 
that for him the flight of time would only push farther and 
farther away the realization of the hope that had seemed so near 
in the winter of 1843-44. Moreover, he seems to have been 
honestly content with the calm of his retirement. Friendly corre- 
spondence with his intimate friends like Flagg, Paulding, and his 
whimsical banker, George F. Wood; the raising and sale of his 
fine stock and prize apples, and proximity to Albany, where he 
could watch with tolerant eye the heated contentions of younger 
men for the prizes that he had enjoyed so long—these were enough 
for him. 

There is no doubt, however, that the prospect of enrolling the 
potent name of Van Buren upon their side appealed to the zealous 
Free-Soilers, to whom, as to all partisans of a novel cause, every 
sound convert was welcome, but an influential one especially so. 
The Free-Soilers now began to cultivate the Radicals; and the 
Radicals began to turn more and more to Free-Soil principles. 
The Evening Post had long had Free-Soil leanings. Now the 
Atlas began to publish strong anti-slavery editorials.** Preston 
King’s success, and the endorsement given him by the legislature, 
encouraged others to take a bold stand. Most of the young men 
of the party saw in the Wilmot Proviso an issue worth joining and 
a chance to challenge the obvious domination of the South. They 


*Shepard, Edward M., Martin Van ly copied.” Letter to C. P. White, Nov. 


Buren, 358-359. 

79 «T am not a candidate for the Presi- 
dency, nor for any other position, nor do 
I intend to be. My intention was ex- 
pressed in a letter to the Republican 
Farmer, of Pennsylvania, . . . extensive- 


29, 1847; Van Buren Mss. 

“E.g., Feb. 3, 1847. The Atlas, by 
this time, was acquiring a state-wide cir- 
culation. It was stated in the Buffalo 
Republic of October 5th that there were 
regularly received at that time in Buffalo 
39 copies of the Adlas to 13 of the Argus. 


THE RADICALS AND FREE SOIL 89 


flocked to it with avidity. Others saw in it a practical antidote 
to political abolition, whose strength was becoming ominous. In 
such conditions, Van Buren’s espousal of Free-Soil doctrines came 
with timely force, and greatly helped to amalgamate his Radical 
followers with the Free-Soilers. 

On other issues, the Radicals were orthodox.” ‘They avowed 
their support of the Tariff of 1846, which professed to place the 
tariff system upon a low-duty but revenue-producing basis; they 
would give no countenance to the encouragement of favored in- 
dustries. [They upheld the Independent Treasury, now quite 
solidly established as a government institution. ‘This of course 
was Van Buren’s peculiar contribution to the workings of the 
government. Above all, they insisted upon the continuance of the 
debt-paying policy in New York state, which now enjoyed the 
sanction of constitutional incorporation. Finally, they professed 
earnest support of the national administration in its prosecution 
of the war, and in its negotiations with England. ‘Thus, the 
Radicals approached the campaign of 1847 with a well-defined 
body of principles, a firm belief that they were the true Democ- 
racy, as much cohesion as at any previous time, and even more 
eagerness to assert their power and to punish their foes. 


4 Letter of Flagg, Sept. 6, 1847; Van burner members of the legislature, given 
Buren Mss. Also, Address of the Barn- in Tilden, II, 535 ff. 


CHAPTER X 


SECESSION OF THE RADICALS, NOW CALLED 
BARNBURNERS 


URING the winter and spring of 1847, the distracted 
1) Democracy of New York, learning no prudence from 

its late defeat, indulged in long newspaper controversies 
as to, first, who was responsible for Silas Wright’s defeat; second, 
the debate in the legislature and in county conventions on the 
Young resolutions approving Preston King’s stand on the Wilmot 
Proviso; third, the alleged disloyalty to the national administration 
of George Rathbun and other Radical congressmen; and fourth, 
the libel suit brought by Edwin Croswell against Cassidy and 
French, proprietors of the 4élas. 

This notorious case was based on an article in the Atlas of 
June 24, 1846, which accused Croswell in the plainest terms of 
instigating “perjury and the subornation of perjury” in the con- 
spiracy cases arising out of a Hunker-Radical fight at New Scot- 
land, Albany County, the previous spring. Cassidy’s counsel was 
the Attorney-General, John Van Buren; and he flayed Croswell 
in the invective of which he was a master. “The man is yet to be 
born,” he said, “original or hardy enough to propose Edwin Cros- 
well for the suffrages of the people in any capacity.”* But Van 
Buren had an opponent worthy of his steel in Rufus W. Peckham. 
He said: 


No one who heard the Attorney-General summing up could doubt 
the paternity of this libel. It was a stream from the same fountain 
that had flowed here. . . . ““Mr. Croswell had stuck his arms into the 
treasury up to his arm-pits”! . . . Why, this gentleman not only stuck 
in his arms, but jumped into the treasury, body and soul!—and not only 
stuck there himself, but pulled down Silas Wright with him. ‘Thousands 
of votes were lost to Mr. Wright from the fact that he was induced to 
certify to the extraordinary and extortionate demands which this patriotic 


* Atlas, Feb. 9, 1847. 


SECESSION OF THE BARNBURNERS 91 


[?] counsel made upon the treasury for his official services in the anti- 
rent cases. . . . “Who ever heard the name of a Croswell suggested for 
an office?” The counsel supposed, no doubt, that it was hardly possible, 
certainly not proper, to think of a Croswell or of anybody else for an 


office, so long as there was a Van Buren in existence. They monopolized 
them all!? 


This sensational case, which resulted eventually in a verdict of 
$500 damages for Croswell, was a scandal to the Democracy of 
the state, and aided in alienating still further the hostile factions. 

The convention held in the spring to choose judicial candidates 
was controlled by the Radicals, William C. Crain being chosen 
chairman. ‘Their majority, however, was only 5; and this marked 
decline of their strength—they had held control, the previous fall, 
by over 30—encouraged their rivals to hope for success at the next 
fall convention. ‘The Hunkers laid their plans carefully. Loyalty 
to the national administration was emphasized; and Strong’s charges 
against the ‘Wilmot men’ were carefully fostered. 

But the chief policy relied upon was an agitation for “new 
men”—that is, men who had not been actively connected with 
either faction*—as candidates for the state offices which, under the 
new constitution, were now for the first time to be filled by vote 
of the people. Lieutenant-Governor Gardiner had resigned, to 
enter the Court of Appeals, and his successor, therefore, was to 
be chosen now; but the great aim of the Hunkers was to get rid 
of Attorney-General John Van Buren and Comptroller Flagg, 
and thus to complete their success of 1845.* 

Flagg was completing his twelfth year of service as State Comp- 
troller, but he declined to retire in favor of a “new man.” He 
was therefore attacked as being too selfish to sacrifice himself for 
party harmony, and thus as an offender against the very principle 
of ‘rotation in office” which he had so strongly invoked against 
Croswell in the state printership fight. He was denounced as 


»° and as having “fin several instances ad- 


““factious and intolerant, 
vised minorities to bolt and establish separate organizations under 


a promise from him and others connected with him that they 


2 Argus, Feb. 15, 1847. “See above, p. 67. 
> McGuire, James K., ed., Democratic f ® Utica Observer, quoted in the Argus, 
Party of the State of New York, 1, 246. * Sept. 8, 1847. 


92 THE BARNBURNERS 


should be sustained. He is an old offender against the peace and 
the usages of the Democratic party.” Finally, Flagg’s financial 
sense, always his pride, which had earned the respect of the highest 
party leaders for years before, and had given him such an un- 
precedented tenure of his office—even that was assailed. ‘““The 
meeting, on July 5, 1847, of a convention at Chicago for pro- 
moting the lake and river navigation of the West, gave occasion 
to comment on the position occupied by Comptroller Flagg.’’® 
Flagg had vigorously opposed the enlargement of the Erie Canal 
and the extension of the lateral canals. He had prophesied that 
canal receipts would never be any higher, yet they had doubled 
within three years. “There is no doubt that the fighting Comp- 
troller was losing popularity; and, overlooking his past services and 
unaware how many of his prophecies would yet be fulfilled, his 
enemies swarmed to the attack. 

The Radicals, on their part, met the cry of “new men” with 
sarcastic ridicule, and denounced it as an insincere subterfuge of 
clever politicians. ‘There is no mistaking,’ they said, “the 
character of a movement in which we see, as in Saratoga county, 
a Conservative convention sending John Cramer as its ‘new man’ 
to Syracuse! or where we find, as in Jefferson county, the delegates 
are expected to go for Mr. Hungerford . . . fresh from a career 
of office closing in defeat,’ yet put forth as a ‘new man’! .. . Is 
Mr. Hungerford, who voted against the tariff of 1846, more free 
from controversy in the Democratic ranks than his colleagues who 
voted for it? Is Mr. Sanford® of New York unaffected . . . who, 
to say nothing of his course recently, voted almost alone against 
the approval of the Wilmot Proviso?’”® 

The cry for “new men” was nevertheless taken up by a con- 
siderable proportion of the Democratic press of the state, and 
doubtless represented to some degree a real longing for harmony 
to be obtained by shelving the old leaders. But the Radicals 
would do nothing to satisfy this longing; and the skilful manage- 
ment of their opponents quickly turned this to their own advantage. 


The New York Globe of September 2nd published a list of thirty- 


® McGuire, I, 246. senators who voted against the Young 
7 See above, p. 82. resolution. 
® He was one of the three Democratic ® Atlas, editorial, Sept. 21, 1847. 


SECESSION OF THE BARNBURNERS 93 


six papers—to which the Argus added three others’’—said to have 
declared for “new men.” The Azlas promptly challenged the 
accuracy of this list, alleging that some names were used without 
authority and that others represented papers which had been estab- 
lished since the last state convention, purposely to break up the 
Democratic organization; and it concluded: 


The pretended “new men” intrigue, at which the same set of political 
gamesters are now playing, is a mere cover for the events of last fall!* 


The Azlas, however, was not successful in discrediting the “new 
men” movement. 

The selection of delegates to the state convention was marked 
by unprecedented rancor. Scenes formerly confined to Albany 
county, culminating in violence and lawsuits, now occurred in 
other sections. “The Hunkers adopted the policy, in the larger 
counties, of endeavoring to break the unit rule and to have the 
delegates elected by districts, hoping in this way to capture some 
districts. When overruled in such attempts, they would bolt, and 
send contesting delegations.’? 

Under circumstances of great excitement, the convention met 
in Syracuse on September 29th. Every county was represented 
except Rockland. Contesting delegates appeared from Erie, New 
York, Otsego, Albany, and Oneida counties. Of the remaining 
53 counties, the Radicals controlled 20; the Hunkers, 27; and 
6 were evenly divided.** Each faction was allowed to appoint 
one teller. ‘The battle over the contested seats led to a long debate 
of the sharpest character and to numerous motions and roll-calls. 
It was finally settled by admitting 2 contesting Hunkers from 
Erie, 7 from New York, and 1 from Otsego, and 2 contesting 
Radicals from Albany, and 1 from Oneida. ‘This increased the 
convention to 136 members, instead of the customary 128, and 
gave the Hunkers control by 73 votes to 63.™* 

Scarcely had the convention got under way when David Dudley 
Field, of New York county, offered a series of resolutions com- 


See Appendix II. eral office-holder, and in seven districts in 
4 Atlas, editorial, Sept. 4, 1847. New York county. 
“This occurred in Buffalo, under the 8 See Appendix III. 

management of W. L. G. Smith, a Fed- “Figures from the Azlas, Sept. 30, 


1847, 


94 THE BARNBURNERS 


mending the course of the majority of the state delegation in 
Congress in supporting the Wilmot Proviso, and lauding that 
measure as sound Democratic doctrine.*® ‘The resolutions were 
ruled out of order, amid great excitement. In the heat of debate, 
all the pent-up reproaches of the previous five years, the person- 
alities, the insinuations, were flung back and forth. ‘The epithet 
“Barnburner” was now commonly applied. James R. Doolittle 
of Wyoming county said that 


When he came here, he scarcely knew to which side he belonged. 
But he began to find his position distinctly. . . . If it was barnburnerism 
to stand up for the rights of free labor to the soil... he was a 
barnburner. . . . If it was barnburnerism to stand by a faithful public 
servant’® who had stood between the people and the rapacity of those 
who would thrust their hands into the public treasury—then he was a 
barnburner!** 


Others branded the efforts of the Radicals as the last struggle of 
the Albany Regency to maintain itself in a position where it had 
become odious. Per contra, the Hunkers were attacked as an 
“Albany clique” who would “rule or ruin” in the state. Event- 
ually, the majority decided against the Radicals, whose resolutions 
were laid on the table.”* 

The Hunker majority now proceeded to name a state ticket, 
substituting Hungerford, who was a bank president and had already 
been, as we have seen, a center of controversy, for Comptroller 
in place of Flagg.*® They then adopted a platform upholding 
the national administration, without any mention of the firebrand 
Proviso. Finally, they reorganized the State Committee on a new 
plan, and then adjourned; but many of the Barnburners had al- 
ready left, alleging unfair treatment. 

The Hunkers tried to disprove this allegation, and the Argus 
went so far as to say: 


One of the most striking features of the convention was the leniency 
and forbearance manifested by the majority toward the minority. 


© James C. Smith had framed a similar | Cambreleng, and Grover, upheld this de- 
resolution for the Western New York cision as technically correct. Argus, Oct. 
Radicals. John Hubbell, in Publications 6, 1847. 


of Buffalo Historical Society, IV, 151. Even on this the Radicals divided, 
% Te, Flagg. six, including Grover and Flanders, vot- 
Reported in Argus, Oct. 17, 1847. ing against Flagg, though not for Hun- 


Some of the Radicals, viz., Crain, gerford. Argus, Oct. 16, 1847. 


SECESSION OF THE BARNBURNERS 95 


But the Whig Syracuse Journal, which may be assumed to be less 
prejudiced, in reporting the convention, said: 


The votes are close, disputed, and repeated several times. The Hunk- 
ers have the majority, and manage affairs in as taunting a manner as 
possible. They are more expert in management, but less powerful in 
debate [than the Barnburners].?° 


To justify themselves, the seceders now called a mass convention 
to meet at Herkimer on October 26th. ‘This move was distasteful 
to Martin Van Buren and Flagg. On October 12th, Van Buren 
wrote that he considered it “likely to inure to the advantage of 
the conservatives only.”** Flagg replied that he too was utterly 
opposed to the “action of these hotspurs from whose indiscretion 
we have suffered as much as from any other source.”** He blamed 
Beckwith of Herkimer,”* among others. 

An editorial, published in the Franklin Gazette after the elec- 
tion and written, doubtless, by Flanders, who was Franklin’s dele- 
gate in the state convention, and on most matters acted with the 
Barnburners, but who did not join in the secession, analyzed their 
reasons for seceding and calling the mass convention, and severely 
condemned them. As to the admission of 136 delegates, that, he 
said,** was due to their own action, and they had remained in the 
convention four days after it; as to the rejection of the Wilmot 
Proviso, that Proviso was “a new proposal, which the Democratic 
state convention of Massachusetts had also rejected, and those of 
Maine, Michigan, and Connecticut had ignored.” He concluded 
that the seceders’ real motive was “a spirit of embittered hostility 
to the present democratic national administration.” Others de- 
clared that “their proceedings . . . are assignable to the fact that 
Mr. Flagg was not nominated.”** 

In spite, however, of the lukewarmness of some of the leaders, 
the Herkimer meeting was a respectable and important assemblage.”® 


® Syracuse Journal, Oct. 1, 1847. Entire editorial reprinted in the 
*° Van Buren Mss., LIV, 12619-20. Argus, Nov. 16, 1847. 
*2 Ibid., 12621. *® Onondaga Democrat, quoted in Ar- 
3 Abijah Beckwith, a farmer and gus, Nov. 12, 1847. 

former member of Assembly, an associate "Estimates of the attendance differ 


of Michael Hoffman. His autobiography, widely. The Herkimer Democrat, an un- 

written after he was 80 years old, is in friendly organ, put it at 262 who came 

the George W. Smith Mss. by train, and 200 “citizens of Herkimer.” 
Other estimates go as high as 3000. 


96 THE BARNBURNERS 


It was the first official gathering of the Barnburners, and took on 
the character of an assemblage of the ex-President’s friends. Its 
spirit was that of uncompromising determination to carry on the 
fight for the principles above stated. It was believed that the Radi- 
cals of the state now had something more to hold them together than 
mere dislike, however strong or well founded, of their opponents. 
In addition to the old issue of upholding the policy of economy 
and solvency within the state, the opportunity now presented itself 
of advocating a great moral issue in the nation, and of fighting 
to commit the party as a whole to its advocacy. 

Cambreleng presided, and John Van Buren prepared the ad- 
dress.°" This address states the occasion of the mass convention 
as follows: 


We shall call your attention more particularly to two of the acts of 
the convention,?® of which we complain, and to which we shall not 
submit. The first is its refusal to allow an expression to be made of the 
sentiments of the New York Democracy in regard to the proposed ex- 
tension of slavery to lands now free; and the second, obviously connected 
with it . . . is the superseding of the present State Central Committee 

. and the recommendation of each Congressional District to send a 
delegate to the next Convention of the Republicans*® of the Union, to 
nominate a candidate for President of the United States, 


The two acts were then discussed fully, but it is noticeable that 
about seven times as much space is devoted to expounding the 
Barnburners’ views on Free Soil as to the violent change in the 
party organization. 

David Dudley Field reported the resolutions, which repeated the 
ideas and almost the words used by King in his speech in Congress, 
the previous January, particularly 


that we believe in the dignity and the rights of free labor; that free 
white labor cannot thrive upon the same soil as slave labor; and that it 
would be neither right nor wise to devote new territories to the slave 
labor of a part of the States, to the exclusion of the free labor of all 
the States,*° 


‘These sentiments were enthusiastically applauded; and, from the 
whole temper of the meeting and its proceedings, it was now 


77 Gardiner, O. C., The Great Issue, 8 1. e., the Syracuse convention. 
50 ff. *T.e., Democrats. * Gardiner, 56. 


SECESSION OF THE BARNBURNERS ae 


evident that the split in the New York Democracy was complete, 
and that the two elements hated and feared each other more than 
they hated and feared the common enemy, the Whigs. From this 
time forth, the Radicals were generally called Barnburners. 

Their immediate efforts were confined to the defeat of the 
Syracuse ticket, whose nominees they attacked as enemies of the 
stop-and-pay policy of 1842, as opponents of the constitutional 
convention, as high-tariff men, and as opponents, the most of 
them, of Silas Wright’s reélection.** These appellations were 
vigorously disavowed by the Hunkers;*” but denials failed to con- 
vince the revengeful Barnburners, who looked upon any candidate 
favored by the Argus as little better than a Whig;** and conse- 
quently, having to choose between them and the Whigs—for the 
Herkimer convention had not named a ticket—thousands stayed 
at home or wrote names on the ballot. 
extensively voted throughout the state: 

Pears Compiratlere natn... Remember Silas Wright 
“For Secretary of State Mountain Freedom 
“For Attorney-General Rebuke Fraud’’** 

The result was what might have been foreseen, the completion 
of the rout of 1846 by the defeat of the Syracuse ticket,** thus 
reducing the party from the proud eminence and great power it 
had occupied in 1843 to temporary impotence. Even the comp- 
trollership, so long the scene of Flagg’s triumphs, and the strong- 
hold of Radical ideas, passed into the hands of a Whig, in the 
person of Millard Fillmore, the former unsuccessful competitor 
of Silas Wright. 


“The following was 


SFO) Vey ew 


Buffalo Republic, editorial, Oct. 6, 
1847. ; 


editor vindicates any important measure 
of Democratic State policy.» Quoted in 


%2F.g., Niagara Democrat, in the case 
of Nathan Dayton, candidate for lieu- 
tenant-governor, 

3 The Ontario Messenger called Edwin 
Croswell and Thurlow Weed “a noble 
pair of brothers” and offered “$10 re- 
ward for any number of the Albany 
Argus, during the last year, in which its 


Buffalo Republic, Oct. 6, 1847. 

Long Island Democrat, Nov. 22, 
1847. 

The vote stood: Fillmore, 174,756; 
Hungerford, 136,027. Flagg received 
votes in nearly every county. Original 
canvass, in the office of the Secretary of 
State, Albany. 


CHAPTER XI 


THE CAMPAIGN OF 1848 


HE time was now at hand when the long struggle was 

to be transferred to a broader stage. Moved by the 

double desire to exercise predominating influence within 
the state and to help decide whether the Southern element should 
remain in control of the party, both the Barnburners and the 
Hunkers prepared to fight for exclusive recognition by the national 
gathering at Baltimore. ‘The Hunkers, since their victory at the 
Syracuse convention the previous summer, had the important tacti- 
cal advantage of being “regular”; and they took full advantage 
of this position. “They created a new State Central Committee, 
with power to cal! future conventions; and this committee did 
call a convention, which met on January 26, 1848, and selected 
delegates, on the district system, to go to Baltimore. 

The Herkimer Convention, meantime, had called another con- 
vention for February 22, 1848, to meet at Herkimer, to select 
national delegates. Later on, however, a caucus of Democratic 
members of the legislature, attended, it was said,* by men of both 
factions—for previously that had been the usual method of order- 
ing conventions—called a convention to meet at Utica on February 
16th, either to select delegates to go to Baltimore, or to determine 
how they should be selected. The Barnburners then abandoned 
their arrangements, and prepared, to fight for delegates to the 
Utica convention. ‘They did not need to, however, as the Hunkers 
persisted in their district plan. 

The Utica convention of February 16, 1848, was composed 
entirely of Barnburners. Delegates were present from every 
county, except three—Cattaraugus, Franklin, and Sullivan. John 
Tracy, the former eminent president of the Constitutional Conven- 
tion, and a man who enjoyed the high esteem of both Van Buren 
and Wright, was the presiding officer. Once more John Van Buren 


* Gardiner, 74. 


THE CAMPAIGN OF 1848 99 


prepared the address,” this time of extreme length, presenting with 
juridical precision the full details of party usage in New York 
State and its violation by the Hunkers, whose history was described 
with a caustic pen. A full set of resolutions, for the most part 
orthodox in tone, was adopted; special praise was bestowed upon 
Thomas H. Benton and upon John A. Dix; and finally a full set 
of thirty-six delegates was named to go to Baltimore. Cambreleng 
and Jared Wilson were the delegates at large; Tilden, Denniston, 
Crain, King, and Wadsworth were among the district delegates. 
The Barnburner movement now began to attract widespread interest 
and attention in other states. 

During the interval between this convention and the final test 
at Baltimore, the legislature adjourned. On this occasion, its 
Barnburner members, still keeping up the ancient practice, issued 
an address* which elaborated and defended the following measures: 
revenue tariff, the Independent Treasury, prosecution of the 
| Mexican War, and, chief of all, the exclusion of slavery from 
| the Mexican cession. This address was written by the two Van 
Burens and Samuel J. Tilden,* and marked the definite pronounce- 
ment of the elder Van Buren in favor of Free Soil. Butler, 
however, found fault with some passages in it attacking the Presi- 
dent, probably on the ground of inexpediency, for he wrote 
“nothing is needed to give them [the Barnburner candidates at the 
next state election] the united vote of all Democrats not prepared 
to join the Whigs or to retire, except the recognition of the 
Baltimore Convention, whose decision therefore they must strive 
hard to get.” 

This decision was an especially embarrassing one for the party 
to make, for it was quite evident that, despite the overwhelming 
success of nearly every measure Polk had set himself to enforce, 
the party would have no easy sailing in the approaching campaign. 
The Whigs were quite harmonious, and were likely to have the 
advantage of a military candidate who would embody all the virtues 
of successful patriotism and would not bear the stigma of un- 
popular motives or mistaken measures. ‘This being the case, the 
national Democracy was anxious lest it render a decision repugnant 


* Given in full in Gardiner, 76-92. 5 Van Buren Mss., LIV, 12788. Let- 
* Tilden, II, 535 ff. “Shepard, 362. ter of May 8, 1848. 


100 THE BARNBURNERS 


to either side. It therefore attempted to “straddle,” and, as a 
step to safety, adopted a rule binding all delegates admitted to its 
councils to support the candidates chosen. On this test, the Barn- 
burners balked; for the memories of 744 were still vivid; and they 
proposed to leave no stone unturned to thwart again, as they had 
done then, the bestowing of the highest party honors upon any of 
the “allies” who had so successfully checked the ambition of their 
idol, Van Buren. Of these candidates, Lewis Cass still remained 
the chief aspirant, and upon him the Barnburners were ready to 
inflict their wrath. “The fact that Cass stood prominent among 
those Northern “Doughfaces” who had refused to entertain the 
idea of the Wilmot Proviso® was to them a fortunate circumstance, 
for it enabled them to arraign him upon the grounds of principle’ 
as well as propriety. Having Cass in mind, but standing upon 
the assertion of their opponents’ dishonest methods and disloyal 
doctrines, the Barnburners unanimously and fervently rejected the 
test which the convention sought to impose upon them. 

In their course at Baltimore, the New York delegates were 
guided largely by the advice of Martin Van Buren, contained in 
a memorandum drawn up on May 3d and intrusted to his son 
John. In it he writes that 


they must have no candidate to present, as that would impair their use- 
fulness; they must not accept a New York man for Vice-President; they 
must not be over-anxious to be admitted, nor too indifferent about it; 
they must rest their case for admission solely on the validity of the two 
conventions held in New York, but not go too much into details, as that 
might let a few conservatives in. ‘They must not pledge themselves to 
support anyone the convention might nominate; they must withdraw if 
their power is threatened with diminution. ‘They should offer a reso- 
lution that the party be not committed to either side in the slavery issue; 
“irreconcilable differences of opinion exist between our political friends 
in different sections; . . . the requirement of a declared conformity to 
either side from the Democratic candidate would inevitably lead to a 
dissolution of the present organization of the Democratic party; and, 
sincerely desirous to uphold as long as practicable an organization from 
which the country has derived such great advantages, . . . this conven- 
tion cannot give their sanction to any such requirement, but will on the 
contrary proceed to the designation of suitable candidates from among 


*See Rathbun’s speech at Utica; Gardi- 
ner, 94-95. 


THE CAMPAIGN OF 1848 101 


those who have not committed themselves to either side of this impor- 
tant and delicate question.” The State of Georgia, certainly, and pos- 
sibly the State of Alabama, had required a disavowal of the Wilmot 
Proviso from candidates looking for its support; Gen. Cass and Mr. 
Dallas disavowed it, on constitutional grounds, Mr. Buchanan, on the 
ground of expediency; the delegation should respectfully but firmly 
declare that neither of those gentlemen, if nominated, can obtain the 
vote of N. Y. ‘The bench of the Supreme Court should not be con- 
taminated by being made the seat of Presidential intrigue;’ the New York 
delegation might, if one of the above-named undesirable candidates be 
named, either announce, as Virginia did in respect to R. M. Johnson 
in 1835, that it would not support him, or it might recommend to the 
Utica convention in September to nominate a ticket, leaving the responsi- 
bility for the loss of the state upon others.® 


‘Thus, by a process of exclusion, Van Buren had proscribed all of 
the “Northern men with Southern principles.’ Whom, then, did 
he wish to see the New Yorkers support, inasmuch as he had avowed 
his own disinclination to run?® All occasion to answer that inter- 
esting question was cut off by the Barnburners’ refusal of the test. 

At the same time, the Hunkers accepted the test imposed, thereby 
convicting themselves, said their rivals, of a lack of any higher 
motive than their notorious “‘hunkering” for the spoils. Be that 
as it may, their acceptance placed them before the representatives 
of other Democratic states as the more regular and “loyal” of 
New York’s two factions. Indeed, the more extreme of the 
Southern delegates, such as Bailey of Virginia and Strange of 
North Carolina, immediately raised the point’? that the Barn- 
burners, in rejecting the authority of the convention and refusing 
to pledge their future course, placed themselves, ipso facto, out- 
side the pale of the party and should no longer be heard. But the 
majority of the convention saw the inexpediency of such proscrip- 
tion and decided to hear the case. For two entire days the advo- 
cates of both sides presented their cases and heard and answered a 
host of questions flung at them by the anxious and rather impatient 

7A slap at Woodbury, of N. H., one 


of the “allies? of 44, now in the Court. 
® Draft in the Van Buren Mss., LIV, 


to use your name as a candidate before 
that body.”—Letter of Delegates to the 
Utica Convention to M. Van _ Buren, 


bar //. 

® “You lately refused the delegation of 
this state, in the event of their reception 
by the Baltimore convention, permission 


June 16, 1848, Gardiner, 109. 

Von Holst, Hermann, Constitutional 
and Political History of the United 
States, II, 364. 


102 THE BARNBURNERS 


delegates. “These questions pertained to the course pursued by the 
New York Democrats, in 1844 and since that year, especially in 
relation to the Wilmot Proviso and other national issues. On 
these subjects, the Barnburners and their opponents were each able 
to cite objectionable conduct on the part of the other, so that in 
the end the wary convention was fain to offer a compromise. ‘The 
full set of delegates presented by each side was to be admitted, but 
each delegate was to have only one-half a vote—““They might 
occupy half a seat apiece,”’* said Stanton, “provided each of them 
would let a Hunker sit on his lap.” The offer of the compromise 
was carried by only 126 votes to 124, and 99 of the affirmative 
votes came from the North, which realized more fully the serious- 
ness of the situation.*” So far as it was a triumph for either side, 
it was so for the Barnburners, for the temper of the convention 
from the first was against them.’* But the Barnburners would 
not consent; for they argued, with sound logic, that it would 
savor of a time-serving spirit of compromise and destroy the basis 
of their assertion that they were contending for a principle. 

They respectfully declined the proposition, and in their reply 
stated that “they [the Hunkers] and our constituents differ essen- 
tially in political principles and action”; that the other side in- 
cluded men who: (1) opposed the Independent Treasury; (2) 
were hostile to the debt-paying policy of New York in 1842; 
(3) lobbied against the Tariff of 1846; (4) fought to prevent 
a constitutional convention in 1846; (5) treacherously defeated 
Silas Wright in 1846; (6) attempted at the Syracuse Convention 
(September, 1847) to subvert the traditional organization of the 
party; (7) “‘Unblushingly advocate the extension of slavery into 
territory now free.”** ‘They therefore withdrew and, without 
further parley, returned to New York, outlaws now from the 
ranks of the party in which many of them had been leading figures 
for a generation. ‘They attributed their exclusion” to the Free- 
Soil resolution they had repeatedly adopted, of which the Baltimore 
Republican and Argus had said, ‘Now let this be called what it 
may in New York, it is the worst kind of Whiggery in our eyes.”*® 


8 Stanton, 80. ® See Tilden, I, 241-242. 

2 Stanwood, 232-233. *® Quoted in the Argus, Nov. 9, 1847. 
18 Gardiner, 96. 

4 Tilden, I, 244-245. 


THE CAMPAIGN OF 1848 103 


In their absence, the convention organized with great appearance 
of harmony, and, on the fourth ballot, nominated the hated Cass 
to head the national ticket. This completed, as it seemed, the 
justification for the Barnburners’ rupture with the Democratic 
party; and they prepared to fight Cass’ election by every means in 
their power. 

To Martin Van Buren in particular, this nomination sounded 
like a challenge which he could not decline. During the previous 
year, he had received repeated solicitations to reénter the political 
arena as a presidential candidate; but, as we have said, he had 
waived them all. ‘These entreaties came from many quarters of 
the North, but chiefly from New England, Pennsylvania, and 
Illinois, as well as from all parts of New York state.” Their 
writers included, among others, Gideon Welles and David Wilmot, 
whose arguments were based chiefly on the great gap in Northern 
leadership left by the death of Silas Wright, and the danger of 
“half-way measures” in the existing emergency. ‘The seriousness 
of the situation now seemed to be heightened by the renewed 
exhibition of Southern dominance just shown at Baltimore. Van 
Buren may also have thought that, in the existing state of Northern 
discontent, there was a possibility for a Free-Soil victory by throw- 
ing the election into the House of Representatives.** While these 
considerations finally prevailed with him, his friend and follower, 
William Allen Butler, expressed his opinion that ““Mr. Van Buren’s 
name was in it, but not his head nor his heart,”’® and Gillet said 
that “in 1848, he [Van Buren] consented to be governed by the 
judgment and wishes of certain of his friends, and, yielding his 
own inclinations, reluctantly consented to run for President.” 

The return of the bolting delegates to New York City was 
made the occasion of a remarkable manifestation of welcome. A 
monster mass-meeting was held in City Hall Park, at which the 
Barnburners’ ablest orators told the story of their experience at 
Baltimore, flayed the arguments and tactics of the opposition, and 
pictured in lurid colors the arrogant domination of the South in 
the party councils. Samuel Young declared, “A clap of political 
thunder will be heard in this country next November that will 


Van Buren Mss., LIV, LV, passim. Morton to Flagg. 
8 Ibid., LV, 12834. Letter of Marcus Butler, 33. ™ Gillet, Democracy, 192. 


104 THE BARNBURNERS 


make the propagandists of slavery shake like Belshazzar.”** Every 
thrust was applauded by the enthusiastic crowd; and it became 
evident that the populace of the metropolis would largely support 
a movement to enforce the protest of the rejected men. ‘The out- 
come of this meeting was, that a resolution was decisively carried 
to call a state convention for the purpose of organizing an inde- 
pendent movement to “prevent a repetition of the treason of 1844,” 
i.e., to insure the defeat of Cass. Again Flagg protested, because 
the call had not gone out from Baltimore,*” and Butler wrote he 
feared the proposed convention would be a failure.” | 

The Utica convention met on June 22, 1848, and was numer- 
ously attended by those who had been at Baltimore and those who 
were in sympathy with them, including a few from neighboring 
states. It was organized by choosing Samuel Young as chairman. 
A stirring address was read, recounting the wrongs suffered by 
the Radicals at the hands of their factional opponents and the 
crowning wrong now inflicted by an ungrateful and unprincipled 
national organization. ‘Then a platform, drawn up by a com- 
mittee of which Butler—who evidently had changed his mind 
about the gathering—was chairman, was presented and adopted. 
The platform reaffirmed allegiance to all the historic Democratic 
doctrines. But of the 1600 words of the platform, more than 
' 500 were devoted to the question of the Wilmot Proviso and the 
limitation of slavery territory by the United States. ‘This evi- 
dently was the chief, as it was in fact the only distinctive, plank 
in the platform upon which the protestants were prepared to launch 
a new party. Upon such a platform, Martin Van Buren was 
nominated for President, and the codperation solicited of all men 
who considered these principles vital. 

The nomination of Van Buren caused a sensation throughout 
the country. It was the first time in the history of the nation 
that an ex-President had emerged from retirement to accept a 


7 Stanton, 80. 


«The General Committee passed 
*2 Also, he opposed a separate ticket 


resolutions cordially approving the nomi- 


because “if the free states are prepared 
for a grand rally for freedom at this 
time I have seen no evidence of it, save 
in this state.” Letter to Wan Buren, 
June 19; Van Buren Mss. 


nations of Cass and Wm. O. Butler... 
after this disgraceful submission, it would 
not be possible to bring together people 
enough to give weight or influence to the 
meeting,” etc. Letter to Van Buren, 
May 31. Van Buren Mss., LV, 12804. 


THE CAMPAIGN OF 1848 105 


nomination for the highest office, and that too from an organization 
other than the one to which he had owed his first success. “Three 
times*™* since then has the first of these precedents been followed, 
and the second one, twice;*° and in every case by a son of New 
York. Surely there was something prophetic in Van Buren’s ac- 
tion. Regular Democrats professed to be shocked by his course. 
They denounced it as unworthy of the high dignity of his former 
position. ‘They declared it savored of personal ambition, which, 
they said, had ever been his characteristic. They talked of petty 
spite, which would deny to another, not less worthy than himself, 
the gratification of legitimate ambition. They sniffed suspiciously 
at “Little Van’s” fervor in behalf of the anti-slavery sentiment, 
undreamed of during the four years he was in the “Presidential 
chair,” when he and his satellite and fellow “‘martyr,” Silas Wright, 
had turned a cold shoulder to such appeals and had voted for the 
application of the “‘gag rule” to abolition petitions. 

Unmindful of these gibes, Van Buren and his friends persisted 
steadily in their course. Encouragement flowed in upon them,”° 
and the whole North, they were told, realized the issue and were 
awaiting the leader. Not alone the Barnburners of New York, 
but generous spirits everywhere, were enthusiastically impatient for 
the call. Many dissatisfied Whigs would join.’ So the call was 
made to gather at Buffalo early in August. ‘The Free-Soil flood 
had overflowed the Barnburner dikes.”’** 

This convention at Buffalo was one of the most spectacular and 
remarkable gatherings of all that eventful period. It met, sat, and 
dissolved in an atmosphere of spontaneous, almost religious, enthusi- 
asm reminding us of the Jacobin excitement of 1793 or the later 
‘craze’ for free silver, or the ‘Armageddon’ campaign. Every 
free state and three slave states were represented. Charles Francis 
Adams of Massachusetts presided. The sessions took place under 
a mammoth tent, from which the sweltering heat drove great 
numbers of men to seek refuge outside, where the difficulties taxed 
the skill of the cleverest party orators and entertainers to control 


« 


In 1856, by Millard Fillmore; in © Van Buren Mss., LV, 12813, 12830, 
1892, by Grover Cleveland; in 1912, by ete. 


Theodore Roosevelt. *™See telegram of the ‘Tippecanoe 
75 By Fillmore and by Roosevelt. Association”; Gardiner, 116. 


* Stanton, 80. 


106 THE BARNBURNERS 


the audience.” 


Large crowds of spectators gathered out of curios- 
ity, and of these many were converted by the vivid eloquence of 
speakers, who included such stars as Cambreleng, ‘Tilden, Young, 
and John Van Buren. 

It was a motley throng, well typifying the old adage ‘‘Poli- 
tics makes strange bed-fellows.” There were gathered there 
anti-slavery Democrats eager to free the party from Southern 
domination, indifferent Democrats seeking revenge on Cass, 
anti-slavery Whigs, and Henry Clay Whigs disgusted with the 
nomination of Taylor. Mingled with all these were the origi- 
nal Abolitionists, no doubt chary of their new allies, but ready 
to overlook much for the sake of the cause. To lead such 
an incongruous throng, were men of conspicuous ability, the 
ablest Democrats of the state. “The very recital of these leaders’ 
names is enough to indicate their predominance. Samuel Young 
and John Van Buren had enjoyed almost a monopoly of the 
highest offices that used to be filled by Democratic legislatures under 
the old constitution. Dean Richmond and Sanford E. Church 
were to become two of the ablest political managers that this state 
of politicians has ever produced. William Cullen Bryant and 
Henry W. Van Dyck wielded the most eloquent and trenchant pens 
employed in the press of the state. David Dudley Field and Sam- 
uel J. Tilden were just reaching the apex of the intellectual powers 
that in years to come were to make them national figures. Preston 
King, James S. Wadsworth, Reuben E. Fenton, and John A. Dix 
were a few of the other members of that notable body whose 
names were to be household words. Little wonder that a body com- 
posed of such men inscribed on its banners “Free Soil, Free Speech, 
Free Labor and Free Men,” and resolved to make the fight national. 
Martin Van Buren was reaffirmed as the candidate of the party,” 
and Charles Francis Adams was named as his running-mate. 

In state politics, the Barnburners emphasized their rejection of 
the authority of the new committee established at Syracuse the year 
before, by perfecting their own organization wherever possible. 
Local committees, called “Jefferson Committees,” were organized 
in many communities, and candidates placed in nomination for 


*? Alexander, II, 132. °° By a vote of 159 to 129 for John 
P. Hale; Stanwood, 172. 


THE CAMPAIGN OF 1848 107 


the legislature. The convention, arranged for at Herkimer, was 
held at Utica on September 14th; and there John A. Dix, who 
had upheld Free-Soil principles in the Senate with much vigor, was 
nominated for governor and Seth Gates of Wyoming County, 
for lieutenant-governor. Dix, it was said, had at first promised 
to support the Baltimore candidates, while Gates was a former 
Whig who had become a prominent Abolitionist, and was nom- 
inated to win the support of the abolition element.** At the same 
time, the Hunkers named Chancellor Walworth for governor and 
Charles O’Conor for lieutenant-governor. 

The campaign that followed, while perhaps not equal to that 
of 1844 in closeness and excitement, was not inferior to it in bit- 
terness. It soon became evident that the Free-Soilers would draw 
much more from the strength of the Democrats than from the 
Whigs. It also seemed likely that Cass and Taylor would so evenly 
divide the rest of the country that New York with its 36 electoral 
votes would once more be the pivotal state. Every effort was, 
therefore, bent to capture it; but, on the part of the regular Dem- 
ocratic organization, the task was hopeless. 

The Free-Soil ticket was contemptuously denounced as the ‘‘cod- 
fish and cabbage”’ ticket; and a letter of Adams’, written in 1844, 
was published, in which the writer asserted of his present running- 
mate that “he had bargained away the right of petition, protection 
to home industry, freedom of speech, and indeed almost every other 
security of liberty. .?*? To this, the Free-Soilers replied 
that they were not supporting the Van Buren of 1836-40, but a 
man of riper years and sounder political judgment. 

Early in the summer, President Polk saw that many office-holders 
in New York were in active sympathy with the Free-Soil move- 
ment. He then began to consider the advisability of removing 
these men from office. Several references in his diary show that 
he discussed the matter with leaders of the party who might be 
supposed to know the circumstances and to offer sound counsel 
regarding the situation. Some, including Senator Dickinson, 
advised the removals as an act of party discipline while others 
recommended overlooking the provocation for the sake of pru- 


®1 McGuire, I, 257. Gillet, Democracy, ®2 McGuire, ibid. 
209. 


108 THE BARNBURNERS 


dence.** ‘The President eventually decided to act; and, on Sep- 
tember Ist, he demanded and received the resignation of Benjamin 
F. Butler, United States Attorney. On account of Butler’s promi- 
nence, the act attracted widespread attention and was commented 
on according to the predilections of those commenting. Its motive™* 
was well understood, and it was regarded as an “‘act of war.” But- 
ler had already been very active in the Free-Soil movement, and 
helped materially to achieve its success in the state. Another who 
was punished for “offensive factionalism” was A. S. Rathbun, post- 
master at Auburn, brother of Congressman Rathbun. ‘The Utica 
Observer said of him, ‘We would not remove him because he is a 
Barnburner, but because he and the other bolters advocate policies 
which, if persisted in, will lead to the dissolution of the Union.” 
Another Barnburner leader who would probably have suffered 
a like punishment to Butler’s was Michael Hoffman; but his death 
anticipated the President’s action. It is probable that the presi- 
dential removals rather aided than damaged the third party move- 
ment in New York State, by strengthening the general impression 
of the arrogance of the Southern group, to which Cass was sup- 
posed to be subservient. 

As the unusual canvass drew to a close, it was seen that Cass’ 
chances of success, without New York’s electoral vote, were slight. 
New England, except New Hampshire and Maine, remained 
staunchly Whig; Pennsylvania bade fair to rebuke the enactment 
of the lower tariff in 1846; in the West, Cass’ strength, outside 
of his own state, was doubtful. Every effort was now made to 
swing New York for the Michigan man, but all in vain. ‘The 
“crusade” started at Buffalo gained in impetus; and, when the 
popular votes were counted, it was found that not only had Cass 
failed, but that he had run third in the state, the votes being: Taylor, 
218,603; Van Buren, 120,510; Cass, 114,318.°° It thus appeared 
that the third party had captured almost half of the regular Dem- 
ocratic votes of the state, in addition to the abolitionists and others 


83 «<Mfr, Buchanan said he would re- and is endeavoring to divide the country 
move them the moment the election into geographical parties.” Polk’s Diary, 
was over.” Diary, July 8, 1848. IV, 114-115. 

%4«Mir. Butler, at the time he was ap- % Stanwood, Edward, Presidential Elec- 


pointed, was a Democrat. He has since  fions, 176. 
abandoned the Democratic party... 


THE CAMPAIGN OF 1848 109 


who had joined in its support, while the Whigs had neither gained 
nor lost directly by the movement. ‘Taylor received the 36 electoral 
votes of New York, which furnished the whole of the margin by 
which he won in the nation. The vote for governor showed little 
deviation from that for president. Fish, Whig, ran 173 votes 
ahead of ‘Taylor; Dix, 2301 ahead of Van Buren; and Walworth, 
2497 ahead of Cass.*° ‘The Whigs elected 108 assemblymen, the 
Barnburners, 14, and the Hunkers, 6. The Whigs also got 31 
out of 34 congressmen.*’ Democratic dissensions had ended in 
the inevitable outcome.** 

In other states, the Free-Soil vote showed notable gains over 
1844, and it was apparent that, to some extent, Van Buren’s name 
had added to their strength. Van Buren tickets were in the field in 
all the states where Birney had received votes in 1844, and also 
in Wisconsin and Iowa, admitted since then.*® Van Buren received 
more votes than Cass in both Vermont and Massachusetts, and 
also did well in Maine, Ohio, and Wisconsin. His total vote was 
291,203, about ten per cent of the entire number of votes cast in 
the country. 


86 Alexander, II, 144. 
"In the district comprising St. Law- 


Seger, former clerk of the Assembly and 
of the constitutional convention of 1846. 


rence and Lewis counties the Barnburners 
nominated for congress, William Collins, 
a very voung man. The Hunkers nomi- 
nated Judge Edwin Dodge, of Gouver- 
neur, grandfather of recent Secretary of 
State, Robert Lansing. ... Later, the 
Whigs and Hunkers united on Francis 


In the ensuing campaign, one of the 
hottest on record, Collins won by about 
150 majority. Interview with Hon. C. 
D. Adams, of Utica. 

38 See Appendix III. 

8 He also received scattering votes in 
Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. 


CHAPTER XII 


THE END OF THE BARNBURNER MOVEMENT 


P AHE campaign of 1848 marked the high tide of the 
Barnburner movement. With the defeat of Cass, the 
Barnburners had attained their much-desired object of 

punishing the “treason” committed against their chiefs in 1844 and 

1846. ‘Themselves outgeneralled and thrust out of power, they 

had proved that it was impossible for their rivals to rise successfully 

upon their ruins. “They had demonstrated to all, without as well 
as within the state, that the electoral vote of New York depended, 
for the time being at least, on their decision. But in doing so, they 
had become allied with uncongenial comrades; and a feeling of 
restlessness arose within them as to where they should turn or what 
they should do next. At first, the talk was all of going straight 
ahead, keeping the ranks closed and forming no alliances. ‘Thus 
Henry S. Randall, of Cortland, wrote to Van Buren one month 
after the election, “We . .. that class of young, able and edu- 
cated men who have led in the Free-Soil movement . . . are 
prepared to abide the issue. Our path is onward. ... Being 
placed now where there are no obligations of party fidelity to stay 
our hands, we mean that the reckoning shall be a full and final 
one. They [the Free-Soilers] will, if led boldly on, become the 
dominant party throughout the West. I give my vote to go the 
full length.”* But to many this seemed an unprofitable and unwise 
plan. Under it, they would be strong in the state, yet not strong 
enough to control, while in most other states they would remain 
the insignificant minority with a fair chance of having their prin- 
cipal national issue taken away from them by some coup of the 

“conscience” section of the victorious Whigs. Under these cir- 

cumstances, dissensions in their ranks quickly appeared. Those 

whose motives were largely personal began to forget their griev- 


*Van Buren Mss., LVI, 13112-13. 
Letter of Dec. 18, 1848. 


THE END OF THE BARNBURNERS 111 


ances and to advocate reconciliation with their late rivals, to oppose 
and oust the common enemy. On the other hand, those who sin- 
cerely and stubbornly believed that “No new slave territory” should 
be kept a leading national issue were willing to perpetuate the 
breach that had been opened. ‘They determined to strengthen their 
weak national organization, while waiting for events that were 
clearly inevitable but, as time showed, destined not to occur imme- 
diately. 

There has always been disagreement as to how far the Barn- 
burner movement in 1848 was actuated by principles and how far 
by the desire for revenge. It is obvious, of course, that each motive 
influenced some, as indeed every reform movement attracts a cer- 
\ tain proportion of men who seek to use it selfishly. In this case, 
the consensus of opinion has seemed to be that personality held a 
larger place than principle. “Thus, Professor Macy observes: “Cer- 
tain it is that the Free-Soil campaign was so managed as to enable 
the Barnburners to administer punishment to their enemies in their 
own party. After this was accomplished, Martin Van Buren and 
nearly all of the distinguished Democrats who had acted with him 
were reabsorbed into the Democratic party.”* Seilhamer—who is 
not however an unbiased critic—declares, ““This [the defeat of 
Cass| accomplished, many of them were willing to forget their 
anti-slavery professions, and reunite with the old party in its pro- 
slavery crusade.”* Schurz thinks “There is no doubt that by many 
the anti-slavery current of the time was merely used as a con- 
venient weapon, in the war of Democratic factions, to avenge 
Martin Van Buren and his following... .”’* And Prof. Mc- 
Laughlin, the sympathetic biographer of Cass, sums up: “Many, 
of course, were not so much friends of freedom as foes of those 
who had disappointed their own fond hopes for their chief; and 
longings for revenge were at the bottom of many of their aspira- 
tions for free soil. . . . The Democratic support of Van Buren 
in New York was decisive. ‘This cannot be attributed to anti- 
slavery sentiment. “The Barnburners, fighting for political exist- 
ence and revenge, and aided by opponents of slavery, polled more 
votes than the ‘regular’ faction. This fact proves that personal 


* Macy, Jesse, History of Political *Seilhamer, George O., compiler, His- 
Parties, 175. tory of the Republican Party, I, 7. 
“Schurz, Carl, Henry Clay, II, 311-312. 


112 THE BARNBURNERS 


pique was the great motive in that state of politicians.”* A nearer 
and not less trustworthy judgment of them is contained in Butler’s 
characterization: “Mr. Van Buren [the elder] was too deeply 
intrenched in his old political notions to utter them [the words 
‘Free Soil,’ etc.] in earnest. . . . Some of its promoters were 
in it from principle, some from association, some out of revenge, 
some as a mere game of Albany politics, directed by a Regency of 
a later date, carrying on business at the old stand.’”® 

There is a large element of truth in these opinions, especially 
as relates to the Van Burens. John Van Buren was the life of 
the movement in 48; wherever he went, men’s eyes were on him. 
Had he seized his fortune at the flood, and gone in heart and soul 
to the Free-Soil movement, his own history and that of the country 
would doubtless have been different. Fenton declared he could 
have had Fremont’s chance; and, if he had, he would surely have 
made more of it than Fremont did. ‘The conclusion is inevitable 
that with zm zeal for restriction of slavery was not a vital motive; 
in his later years, it is said,’ he used to explain his activity in *48 
by relating the story of the boy who was frantically tossing an 
overturned load of hay and, when questioned as to why he worked 
so hard, answered without stopping, “Stranger, dad’s under there!” 
But, it seems quite certain that in this case, “dad was under there” 
because of his son; in other words, that John Van Buren led his 
father into the Barnburner revolt. ‘The elder Van Buren never 
publicly regretted his act; in 1858 he told Stanton, that “his utter- 
ances on the great evil were his matured convictions”;* “with 
serious earnestness, he added, ‘the end of slavery will come—amid 
terrible convulsions, I fear, but it will come.’” Why, then, did 
he support Pierce against Hale in 1852, Buchanan in 1856, the 
anti-Lincoln ticket in 1860? The explanation most conformable 
with his experience and his temperament is, that he thought the 
end of slavery should come constitutionally and through the Demo- 
cratic party rather than through other methods and agencies. 

This explanation also applies to Loomis, Cambreleng, Butler, and 
Dix—though the Civil War eventually drove Dix into the Repub- 
lican ranks. It is not justifiable to say that they were not sincere 


5 McLaughlin, A. C., Lewis Cass, 241, 7 Alexander, II, 129. 
261. ® Stanton, 87. 


* Butler, 33-34. 


THE END OF THE BARNBURNERS 113 


in their professions against slavery, proved as those were, in such 
cases as Dix’s, by the boldest action. They simply could not tolerate 
the heterogeneous, more or less disorderly elements that probably 
seemed to them to stand in the way of a proper solution.® Arphaxed 
Loomis, whose clear and constructive mind was recognized by all 
men, believed that the proper course to pursue was to remain in 
the Democratic party, to help make it the anti-slavery party of 
New York and of the Union. He said, ‘‘We can exercise more 
influence with our friends—with our own party—than we can 
standing outside as antagonists.”*° “He had always been opposed 
to Mr. Seward on all points except on the slavery question, and 
he could not consent to support a movement to sustain... Mr. 
Seward’s general policy.” For these reasons he refused to become 
a Republican. 

To others, like Seymour, Tilden, and O’Conor, the issue of 
slavery did not loom so large. They really believed the Compro- 
mise of 1850 a fair solution, and that would be enough to account 
for their taking what, in those excitable days, must have seemed, 
what their enemies freely called it, a pro-Southern course. 

Lastly, there were those to whom the issue of Free Soil really 
was the great issue, and their solution of it the only proper one. 
Men like Preston King, Wadsworth, Fenton, and Field joined 
the Republican Party naturally on that account. They were logi- 
cal; but to approve their course does not require us to condemn 
that of the other eminent and high-minded men of the Barnburner 
movement, who did not agree with them that that was the proper 
course. On the whole, the participation of nearly all the Barn- 
burner leaders and of most of their rank and file was sincere, 
though a great many of them accepted the necessity of the issue 
from their hearty belief in the sincerity of Martin Van Buren.™* 

In the summer of 1849, determined efforts were made by prac- 
tical men on both sides to reunite the two hostile factions of the 
late Democracy of New York. At the suggestion of the Demo- 


® Memoirs of John A. Dix, quoted in racy extended praise to him because he 
Alexander, II, 133, foot. “almost alone among the elder statesmen 
1 Address of George W. Smith, in of the country, fully identified himself 
Papers Read before the Herkimer County with the opponents of slavery extension, 
Hist. Soc., II, 109 ff. and bore their standard with calm cour- 
%The resolution of the Free Democ- age,” etc. Van Buren Mss., LVI, 13135. 


Pia THE BARNBURNERS 


cratic members of the legislature, the state conventions of the Barn- 
burners and Hunkers were held in Rome at the same time, August 
15-17. ‘They failed, however, to coalesce, because the Barnburners 
accused the Hunker convention, over which William L. Marcy 
presided, of trying to impose a pro-slavery creed. On September 
6th, the “regular” state convention (Hunker) met in Syracuse and 
adopted a resolution that “the Democratic state committee shall 
impose no test upon the said candidates . . . inconsistent with 
the free-soil resolutions adopted by the convention held at Rome.”” 
They then nominated a full ticket, but authorized the state com- 
mittee to withdraw four of the candidates in case the Utica conven- 
tion, to be held on September 12th, should make suitable nomina- 
tions..* The “Radicals,” i.e., the Barnburners, accepted the oppor- 
tunity, and a frail fusion was effected. When it was suggested 
as incongruous that those who had so lately been denouncing each 
other, should now be yielding places to one another, John Van 
Buren replied, “We are asked to compromise our principles. “The 
day of compromise is past; but in regard to candidates for state 
officers, we are still a commercial people. We will unite with our 
late antagonists, and will hold them as we hold the rest of man- 
kind—enemies in war, in peace, friends.”’* ‘The effort to arrange 
a fusion ticket nearly broke down over the question of the state 
treasurership. Randall of Cortland had expected the joint nomina- 
tion, but the Hunkers had already named Tompkins, another Barn- 
burner whom John Van Buren favored in the interest of party 
harmony. Van Buren sought to persuade Randall to withdraw, but 
the latter naturally enough refused. Van Buren’s influence, how- 
ever, was great enough to defeat Randall—but the contest left its 
stings. Both principals wrote to Martin Van Buren their own 
versions. Of the two letters, Randall’s is much the more amicable; 
“Prince John” says, “I think the man is either a fool or a knave; 
I don’t know but both.”*® ‘This incident would suggest that the 
love of faction fighting for its own sake had gotten into the blood 
of some of the Barnburners. 

The effort to rehabilitate and harmonize the Democracy was 
not immediately successful; for, of the fusion ticket named by 


™ Democratic Review, XXV, 485 ff. Stanton, 82. 
* McGuire, I, 266. * Van Buren Mss., LVI, 13227a. 


THE END OF THE BARNBURNERS 115 


the late conventions, every candidate but one was defeated. ‘This 
defeat was the more humiliating because it contrasted so glaringly 
with the general Democratic success elsewhere, in that year. It 
was due in part to the unexpectedly heavy vote polled, for an off 
year, by the Whigs,*® and more to the smoldering intolerance of 
each other exhibited by the two Democratic factions. It was charged 
by a critic of the time that “in violation of the rule that there was 
to be no test, the Lockport Free-Soil committee addressed test ques- 
tions to the leading candidates,’ on the power, duty, and propriety 
of Congress restricting slavery in the territories; and that “most 
of the candidates treated these impertinent queries with the con- 
tempt they deserved.” 

The next year, however, the two factions seemed to be some- 
what more harmonious. Only one convention was held, and to 
this Barnburner delegates, including John Van Buren, were admit- 
ted on their own terms; in fact, as someone put it, they were not 
received back into the party; they simply walked back without ask- 
ing. Among the resolutions, which were offered by Charles 
O’Conor, was one which stated, ““That we congratulate the coun- 
try upon the recent settlement by Congress’® of the questions which 
have unhappily divided the people of these states.” When this 
came to a vote, it was carried with only some 20 dissenting votes, 
although it was diametrically opposed to the Buffalo platform of 
1848. For the time being, the Barnburners agreed to join with 
the rest of the country in accepting the Compromise, and they 
agreed to support the state ticket, on which they had representatives, 
although Horatio Seymour headed it. As a result, the entire ticket 
was elected, except Seymour, who failed by only 262 votes, 
owing to discrimination against him in the anti-rent counties, 
as in Wright’s case in 1846.'° Nevertheless, the breach was far 
from closed. A writer in the Democratic Review called attention” 
to the fact that “the result in the assembly districts [which went 


% The vote for Hunt, Whig, for comp- 
troller, was only about 6 per cent less 
than Taylor’s presidential vote for the 
year before, and more than 18 per cent 
above Fillmore’s vote in 1847. The vote 
for Lott, Democrat, for comptroller, was 
15 per cent less than the combined Van 
Buren-Cass vote in the state in 1848. 
Official canvass. 


™ Democratic Review, XXV, ut supra. 
*J.e.. the Compromise of 1850. 

In nine anti-rent counties, Seymour 
was 128 behind Hunt, Whig, while 
Sanford E. Church, Seymour’s running 
mate, won by 9763. Democratic Review, 
XXVIII, 529 ff. 

” Ibid. 


116 THE BARNBURNERS 


overwhelmingly Whig] proves that the union has been a mere 
truce, an agreement upon candidates, not generally upon principles, 
a coalition.” 

In 1851, fusion was still closer, and success correspondingly 
greater. ‘Ihe old canal issue, which had originally split the party, 
came up again, in a form which drove both factions together. ““The 
positions taken by the convention were harmoniously and unan- 
imously reached, and by no delegate was any extreme proposal 
made or expression uttered.”’* ‘The reunited Democracy elected 
most of the state officers, including Henry S. Randall for secretary 
of state, and, more significant still, succeeded in capturing the 
Assembly. 

Finally, in 1852, the restoration of party unity seemed com- 
plete. “At Tammany’s Fourth of July celebration, the presence 
of the prominent leaders who bolted in 1848 gave evidence of 
the party’s reunion. ‘The chief speaker was John Van Buren. 
Upon the platform sat John A. Dix, Preston King, and Churchill 
C. Cambreleng. Of the letters read, one was from Martin Van 
Buren.”*” Evidently, the Barnburners were no longer considered 
as different from other Democrats. As a result of the triumphant 
campaign that followed, Horatio Seymour at length attained the 
goal he had previously missed so narrowly—the governorship—and 
carried into office with him the whole ticket. His inaugural message 
made important suggestions with regard to improving the canal 
system, and these he followed up in a special message of April 5th; 
but natural economic changes had already much reduced the for- 
mer importance of those waterways, and events proved that with 
this had also been practically destroyed ‘“‘the canal issue,” as a cause 
of party discord. 

To be sure, the turbulent Democracy of New York split again 
in this very year, but this was due more to questions of affiliation 
with the national organization than to the old issues. Sufficient 
proof of this is found in the new names given to the two sides, 
and in the fact that ex-Hunkers and ex-Barnburners were indis- 


criminately mingled in the. leadership of both the opposing factions, 
the “‘Hards” and “‘Softs.’’?* 


* McGuire, I, 282-283. *% McGuire, I, 290-295. 
2 Alexander, II, 177. 


THE END OF THE BARNBURNERS 117 


The real sequel of the Barnburner movement came in the organ- 
ization of the Republican party in New York. The passage of 
the Kansas-Nebraska Act destroyed forever the illusive “harmony” 
which had seemed to be secured by the Compromise of 1850, and 
at the same time made it clear that the great anti-slavery party of 
the Union was not to be, as some had hoped, the Democratic party. 
The Whigs were moribund, and their leaders quickly recognized 
the necessity of merging into a new party with some of their former 
foes. ‘They promptly sought the codperation of the Barnburner 
chiefs, whose antagonism to slavery they counted upon; and their 
search was not in vain. Nearly all the Radical leaders who had 
stood for the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 and had attended the Barn- 
burner conventions of 1847 and ’48—in other words, the sincere 
Free-Soil Democrats—flocked to the new organization. Stanton”* 
declares that every Democrat who voted for a radical resolution, 
which he offered in the legislature, during the discussion of the 
compromise growing out of the Mexican War, subsequently became 
a member of the Republican party. Many others whose names 
have been mentioned in these pages joined the rising tide of Repub- 
licanism and many obtained high honors by doing so. Fenton, the 
later war governor, Preston King, and John A. Dix were conspicu- 
ous examples; and, of the lesser lights, Ward Hunt, Nathaniel 
S. Benton, Abijah Beckwith, and E. A. Maynard will serve as 
examples. Of still younger men, later known to fame as Repub- 
licans, whose first political experience was obtained in the ranks of 
Barnburners, Elbridge G. Lapham was one. ‘Those Free-Soil Barn- 
burners who did not become Republicans were chiefly the older 
men, of the type of Loomis and Flagg, who could not break the 
associations of a lifetime. As was said of them, in discussing one 
of their number,”* “they returned to the Democratic party, but 
never failed to denounce the slave power.” 

To the Republican cause, the Barnburners contributed much 
that was essential. First, they furnished a practical issue, one that 
appealed to the country as abolition could not do. Second, they 
gave leaders—men of experience, like King and Field, and men 
of vision and determination, whose very names made the cause 


Stanton, $2. 5 Charles A. Mann, a leader in Oneida 
Co., George W. Smith Mss. 


118 THE BARNBURNERS 


respectable. Finally, they gave themselves—a body of voters, 
whose numbers, added to the bulk of the disbanded Whigs, quickly 
made the state Republican. A brief examination of the map” 
showing the localization of the Barnburners at the height of their 
power will convince one of the importance of their support to 
the success of the new party. Counties like St. Lawrence, that 
had never been Whig, became the strongholds of Republicanism; 
these same counties had been the strongholds of Radicalism in the 
days of Silas Wright. Judge Adams, who was then a young 
man, testifies that the young men of northern New York had been 
mostly Barnburners, while their elders had feared “mob rule” and 
“letting down the gates.” These young men now went over to 
the Republican party en masse. In 1856, Lewis county, which 
had been Democratic by 300 to 400, gave a Republican plurality 
of 2500! In the town of Lowville, which had been previously 
quite evenly divided, a contemporary said: “I was one of only 42 
men who voted for Buchanan [out of over 600 voters].”?’ So 
completely did the secession of the Barnburners destroy the once- 
powerful Democratic sentiment in that part of the state. The con- 
clusion is irresistible that the Republican party in New York, and, 
by virtue of it, the Republican party in the Union, received a 
decisive increment of strength from the accession of the Barn- 
burners; and that Senator Hoar was correct in calling the move- 
ment which culminated at Buffalo in 1848, “‘the origin of the 
Republican party.”* 


*® See Appendix IV. * Quoted in Curtis, Francis, The Re- 
Interview with Hon. C. D. Adams. publican Party, I, 114-115. 


CONCLUSIONS 


UR study of Democratic politics in New York during the 

eventful second quarter of the nineteenth century leads 
us to the following conclusions: 

First, the cleavage within the Democratic ranks grew out of a 
difference in principles, which was real, not assumed, as some have 
thought. ‘The special demands of the Radicals were restriction of 
public works, economy and safety in state finance, and limitation 
of the power of the legislature in matters of debt. “These were 
essentially state issues and gave to their advocates the character and 
reputation of a state faction. To these they were consistently and 
persistently loyal, while their opponents, forced to agree to these de- 
mands for a time by compulsion of public feeling, intended to evade 
them when the opportunity should arise. ‘This intention the Radi- 
cals thwarted, but with a tactlessness and vehemence that further 
estranged their associates. In their advocacy of these principles, 
the Radicals were ahead of their age, but their ideas were after- 
ward largely adopted. “The movement that began with the “‘Peo- 
ple’s Resolution” and culminated in the Constitutional Convention 
of 1846 was distinctly guided by them; and the constitution that 
was then adopted and whose principles are still substantially in 
force, was strongly stamped with their influence. 

Second, in larger fields, outside of their particular state problems, 
the Radicals naturally adopted the more progressive ideas. Owing 
in part to their accustomed independence in thought, and in part 
to their hostile relations with the national administration, they 
readily adopted Free-Soil principles, and transferred most of their 
strength in the country districts to the parties that advocated such 
ideas. ‘This resulted in making western and northern New York a 
Republican stronghold from 1855, on. 

Third, their connection with the cause of Martin Van Buren 
was more incidental than fundamental. ‘The disappointment of 
Van Buren did not create the Barnburner movement, as has been 
often alleged. Rather, Van Buren’s friends took advantage of a 


120 THE BARNBURNERS 


body of Radical opinion already existent; but, in doing so, they 
had to adopt its principles, and their support and leadership helped 
immensely to vitalize and popularize those principles. 

Fourth, the failure of the Barnburners to secure their objects 
more fuliy was due in part to their being in advance of their time, 
but in large measure to the political deficiency of their leaders. 
Azariah C. Flagg was their ablest politician in their early period, 
but he was handicapped by the impetuosity and violence of men 
like Hoffman and Young. Martin Van Buren was their wisest 
counsellor in their later days, but his age and his situation rendered 
it impossible for him to give them the great aid he could have given 
a dozen years before. ‘The Barnburner chiefs, in spite of their 
intellectual and moral predominance, were unable to cope with 
such masters of party management as Croswell, Seymour, Marcy, 
and Dickinson, and consequently they met discomfiture on many 
occasions when victory seemed inevitable. 

Fifth, in spite of these disappointments, the Barnburner move- 
ment had permanent results of great importance. Its fusion of the 
three currents—demand for constitutional and fiscal reform, 
demand for slavery restriction in the territories, and resentment of 
Southern domination in national politics—started a great impetus 
toward the break-up of the ruling Democratic party; it contributed 
vitally to the successful formation of the next dominant party, 
the Republican; and it introduced progressive features and helped 
to popularize progressive principles in laws and public affairs. For 
these reasons, the Barnburner movement must be ranked as one 
of the most significant political movements in American politics. 


ye 


APPENDICES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, AND 


7 2 


21 4 
En vs 
te a ett, 


} : e 








APPENDIX I 


DIVISION OF DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF THE 
LEGISLATURE IN THE SENATORIAL NOMI- 
NATING CAUCUS, 1845 


CouNTIES 

I. Supporting Dix, Tompkins Schoharie 
Radical Wayne Steuben 
Cayuga Westchester Suffolk 
Clinton II. Supporting Dick- Sullivan 
Columbia inson, Hunker Ulster 
Delaware Chenango. Warren 
Fulton Chemung III. Evenly Divided 
Hamilton Cortland Orange 
Herkimer Greene Oswego 
Jefferson Lewis Otsego 
Onondaga Madison Seneca 
Putnam Montgomery Tioga 
Rockland Oneida 
St. Lawrence Queens 


Jefferson Co. Democrat, Jan. 23, 1845. 
Guuhtics not named either were represented in the legislature 
by Whigs, or their representatives were absent from the caucus. 


10 


APPENDIX II 


FACTIONAL AFFILIATION OF DEMOCRATIC 


~NEWSPAPERS IN NEW YORK STATE, 
1846-48 


I. BaRNBURNER PAPERS 
A—Paper published or approved the publication of the 4¢/as extra, 
“‘Causes and Consequences” (of Gov. Wright’s defeat), during 


the winter of 1846-47. 


B—Carried Silas Wright’s name on its editorial page as its choice 


for President. 


C—Did not approve secession from the party. 


Name of Paper 
Albany Atlas 
Cayuga Patriot 
Cayuga Tocsin 
Mayville Sentinel 
Elmira Gazette 
Plattsburg Republican 
Buffalo Republic 
Franklin Gazette 
Catskill Recorder 
Prattsville Republican 
Mohawk Courier 
Jefferson Co. Democrat 
Lewis Co. Democrat 
Evening Post 
Niagara Cataract 
Newburgh Telegraph 
Goshen Clarion 
Utica Democrat 
Onondaga Standard 
Ontario Messenger 


Western Atlas 


Where published 
Albany, Albany Co. 
Auburn, Cayuga Co. 
Auburn, Cayuga Co. 


Mayville, Chautauqua Co. 


Elmira, Chemung Co. 
Plattsburg, Clinton Co. 
Buffalo, Erie Co. 
Malone, Franklin Co. 
Catskill, Greene Co. 
Prattsville, Greene Co. 


Little Falls, Herkimer Co. 
Watertown, Jefferson Co. 


Turin, Lewis Co.. 


New York, New York Co. 


Lockport, Niagara Co. 
Newburgh, Orange Co. 
Goshen, Orange Co. 


Utica, Oneida Co. 
Syracuse, Onondaga Co. 


Canandaigua, Ontario Co. 


Ontario Co. 


Remarks 


A 


A, B 


QD +} 


>> PP 


> > Pp 


Oswego Palladium 

Westchester & Putnam 
Democrat 

Troy Budget 

Saratoga Sentinel 

St. Lawrence Republican 


Steuben Farmers’ Advocate 


Seneca Falls Democrat 


Suffolk Republican Watchman 


Ithaca Journal 

Ulster American 
Wayne Sentinel 
Westchester Reporter 
Wyoming Republican 
Penn Yan Democrat 


APPENDIX II 


Oswego, Oswego Co. 


Carmel, Putnam Co. 
Troy, Rensselaer Co. 
Saratoga Co. 
Ogdensburg, St. Lawrence 
Co. 
Steuben Co. 
Seneca Falls, Seneca Co. 
Suffolk Co. 
Ithaca, Tompkins Co. 
Kingston, Ulster Co. 
Wayne Co. 
Westchester Co. 
Wyoming Co. 
Penn Yan, Yates Co. 


II. Hunker Papers 
D—Declared for “new men,” for state ticket in 1847. 
E—Attacked Wright as a candidate, 1846. 
F¥—Retracted attacks, and declared for Wright’s renomination, 


1846. 

Name of Paper 
Albany Argus 
Binghamton Democrat 
Cattaraugus Republican 
Chemung Democrat 
Norwich Journal 
Cortland Democrat 
Buffalo Courier 
Genesee Democrat 
Batavia Times (Spirit 

of the Times) 
Catskill Democrat 
Herkimer Democrat 
Black River Journal 
Watertown Jeffersonian 
Brooklyn Eagle 


Where published 
Albany, Albany Co. 
Binghamton, Broome Co. 

Cattaraugus Co. 
Elmira, Chemung Co. 
Norwich, Chenango Co. 
Cortland, Cortland Co. 
Buffalo, Erie Co. 

Genesee Co. 


Batavia, Genesee Co. 
Catskill, Greene Co. 
Herkimer, Herkimer Co. 
Black River, Jefferson Co. 
Watertown, Jefferson Co. 
Brooklyn, Kings Co. 


125 


> > 


Remarks 


OOUSD 


~) 
UO week, 


126 


Lewis Co. Republican 
Dansville Chronicle 
Madison Democrat 
Madison Observer 
Rochester Advertiser 
Montgomery Democrat 
New York Globe 


Niagara Democrat 
Rome Sentinel 
Utica Observer 
Onondaga Democrat 
Geneva Gazette 
Goshen Independent 
Republican 
Newburgh Highland Courier 
Orleans Republican 
Freeman’s Journal 
Long Island Democrat 
Saratoga Republican 
Schoharie Republican 
Seneca Observer 
Suffolk Democrat 
Republican Watchman 
Ulster Democrat 
Ulster Telegraph 
Sandy Hill Herald 


Western Argus 
Westchester Spy 
Westchester Herald 


Perry Democrat 


THE BARNBURNERS 


Lowville, Lewis Co. 
Dansville, Livingston Co. 
Madison Co. 
Madison Co. — 
Rochester, Monroe Co. 
Fonda, Montgomery Co. 
New York, New York 
Co. 
Lockport, Niagara Co. 
Rome, Oneida Co. 
Utica, Oneida Co. 
Syracuse, Onondaga Co. 
Geneva, Ontario Co. . 


Goshen, Orange Co. 
Newburgh, Orange Co. 
Albion, Orleans Co. 
Cooperstown, Otsego Co. 
Jamaica, Queens Co. 
Saratoga Co. 
Schoharie Co. 
Seneca Co. 
Huntington, Suffolk Co. 
Monticello, Sullivan Co. 
Ulster Co. 
Ulster Co. 
Sandy Hill, Washington 
Co. 
Lyons, Wayne Co. 


Westchester Co. 


Mt. Pleasant, Westchester 
Co. 
Perry, Wyoming Co. 


* Afterwards changed to Barnburner side. 


OOUDD 


DL 


D 
D 
D,E 
D 
D,E 


D 
D 
D* 
D* 


So LR SS A, oT oUUUN 


oO 
ry 








[Pa ee 


APPENDIX III. 


Vote in Democratic state convention, Syracuse, Sept. 29-Oct. 2, 
1847.—From official report published in Argus, Oct. 15, 1847; 
corroborated by Atlas, Sept. 30. Where adjoining counties voted 
alike, boundary separations not shown. 





2: ae ost 
= ewe er oo eee ee 


Ba] Barnburner counties, viz.: Allegany, Cayuga, Chemung, 
Clinton, Columbia, Delaware, Dutchess, Erie, Franklin, Herkimer, 

| Lewis, New York, Niagara, Ontario, Otsego, Putnam, Queens, 
St. Lawrence, Seneca, Steuben, Tompkins, Westchester, Wyoming. 


—=) (vote. 
ie) Hunker counties —67 votes 
Counties evenly divided — 6 votes for each side 


Uncolored—Rockland Co. unrepresented. 

















APEEN DIX: 


Localization of Barnburner strength, 1848, shown on vote for 
Dix, Barnburner, vs. Walworth, Hunker, for Governor. 


Official canvass, office of 
Secretary of State, Albany. 





y, 


A, 






Ze) 
Oo ile 


















| 
ae 


Z =f 
ae nh oe anes <5 i amen fa 


Counties predominantly Barnburner, i.e., giving Dix mor 
than 60% of vote cast for Dix & Walworth combined, viz.: Allegany 
Cayuga, Chemung, Cortland, Delaware, Fulton and Hamilton, Her- 
kimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Livingston, Madison, Monroe, Niagara 
Onondaga, Ontario, Orleans, Oswego, St. Lawrence, Steuben, Tomp- 


kins, Washington, Wayne, Yates. 


Counties predominantly Hunker, less than 40% for Dix. 


|] Counties quite evenly divided, 40-60% for Dix. 
Se Cs 

















=e o 


N 














~ ee 


- se eg yp — 


SS . 


Ce cee 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 
I. SOURCES 


A. UNPUBLISHED 


In the various collections of manuscript left by prominent public 
men of the period studied, there is much material that throws light 
upon the Barnburner movement. ‘The causes that led to the party 
division and the motives that led to the choice of sides in it, are 
often illustrated in the correspondence of the leading actors with 
each other and with their followers. ‘The following collections 
represent this class of material, on which I have drawn freely to 
amplify and vivify my narrative, as well as to corroborate or correct 
statements and opinions found in previous printed accounts: 


i: 


Van Buren Mss., Library of Congress. 


Contain many letters written to Martin Van Buren by leaders of the Barn- 
burner movement during the time it was forming and at its height. Also, 
drafts of some by Van Buren in reply, showing the gradual evolution of his 
interest in the cause. 


Marcy Mss., Library of Congress. 


Contain some interesting letters written by and to Marcy during this period, 
chiefly while he was in Washington as secretary of war, when he was sup- 
posed to be exerting his influence against the Barnburners. 


Fracc Mss., New York Public Library; subdivided into 


(a) Siras Wricut LeTTers. 


A collection of letters written to Flagg by Wright during a period of about 
twenty years; frank and confidential in tone, but freely discussing public 
questions. There is a noteworthy hiatus during the two years of Wright’s 


’ gubernatorial term. 


(b) MicuarL Horrman LETTErs, 


A similar collection written by Hoffman, revealing the latter’s unsparing 
hostility to the “interests” and “big business” of that day, as he saw it. Shows 
the most radical side of the Radical movement. 


(c) MisceLytangeous Letrers, 1824-1836. 


A collection of letters of Flagg and his correspondents, other than the two 
foregoing. Illustrates the development of the Radical movement. 


Titpen Mss., N. Y. Public Library. 


Contain what is left of Samuel J. Tilden’s correspondence and papers, after 
his literary executor, John Bigelow, had destroyed what he considered of no 
permanent value. Unfortunately, this included most of Tilden’s earlier corre- 
spondence, so the present collection has proved of little value on our topic. 


128 


ey 


10. 


1. 


12. 


13, 


14. 


THE BARNBURNERS 


O’Reitity Mss., chiefly in the N. Y. Historical Society, but a few 
pieces in the Rochester Historical Society. 

An unclassified collection of writings by and to Henry O'Reilly, who was 
prominent during that period as a journalist and publicist, and occasionally 
active in politics. He had a large correspondence, which has furnished some 
points to the narrative of the period of the constitutional convention. 


GeEorGE P. Barker Mss. 
GerEorcE W. Cuintron Mss. 


THEopoTUs BURWELL: Reminiscences, in manuscript, dated “New 
York, [ata gosuLeone 


These three are in the Buffalo Historical Society. They have yielded a few 
hints as to, e. g.. Van Buren’s influence in Buffalo. 


Ogiruary Recorps oF BurFraLo, 1812-1895; 4 volumes, Mss.; 
Farnham, Comp. 


SYLVESTER J. MarruHews: Reminiscences of Early Buffalo. 


These are also in the Buffalo Historical Society, and helped to contribute to 
the “local color” of the narrative. 


GeorcE W. SmirH Mss., in private ownership, Watertown, N. Y. 


Judge Smith was just beginning his public life at the time of the Barn- 
burner revolt, and then and afterwards was intimately acquainted with many 
of the leaders in it, as well as with their opponents. He wrote a great deal 
for his own and other newspapers, but besides his published work, he left a 
mass of carefully prepared material, which he had several times proposed to 
convert into an historical and biographical volume on central New York, but 
he failed to complete his project. From this material, I derived much in- 
formation on political and personal topics. 


ApiyaAH BrEcKwiTH: Reminiscences; in the Smith collection. 


A brief but straightforward account of the connection of a typical Barn- 
burner—not a prominent leader—with the Free-Soil movement. 


Joun Stryker Mss. 


Stryker was an extremely active politician of that period, an associate and, 
according to George W. Smith’s statement, a free correspondent of Croswell, 
Marcy, and others. These letters, if still in existence, should give many 
valuable hints about the political manoeuvers of that period; but, as yet, my 
efforts in Utica, Clinton, and Rome have not been able to trace them. 


GouUVERNEUR KEMBLE Mss. 


A few letters by and to Hon. Gouverneur Kemble, who served one term in 
congress, and who was an influential and respected leader in Putnam and 
Rockland counties. A moderate Barnburner. 


In addition to the manuscript sources, there are still a few living 
sources, i.e., men surviving, though in very advanced years, 
from the Barnburner days, and having an intelligent knowledge 
of the subject. One such was Hon. C. D. Adams of Utica, very 
clear-minded in spite of his ninety years, who courteously gave me 
some interesting anecdotes of the northern New York Barnburners 
and their transference to the Republican party. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 129 


B. PuBLIsHED 


The published sources may be classified into, first, official publi- 
cations, such as laws and reports produced in connection with the 
movement; second, platforms of the various political parties con- 
cerned; third, writings of the various participants and other public 
men of that period; fourth, newspaper files. 


1. 


2, 


OrFiciaL PUBLICATIONS. 

(a) Laws or New York; by sessions of the legislature, annual. 
Contain the text of the various statutes enacted by the legislature during the 
Radical-Barnburner era. 

(b) JouRNALs OF THE SENATE, AND OF THE ASSEMBLY; annual. . 
Contain record of the votes cast on the various bills at issue. 

(c) DocuMENTs OF THE SENATE, AND OF THE ASSEMBLY; several 
volumes annually. 

Contain: 


(1) Governors’ Messaces. Useful for presenting succinct accounts of the 
condition of the state in reference to finance, public works, etc., at successive 
stages of the controversy. Especially valuable are the messages of Governors 
Marcy, Bouck, and Wright, found in volumes named from the years of their 
incumbency. 


(2) Comprrotiers’ Reports. Similar in utility to the preceding, but more 
limited and detailed. Especially valuable are Flagg’s reports. 


(3) Rerorts of other officials and boards, e.g., the Canal Commission (ex- 
penditures), the Secretary of State (official vote). 


(4) Reports of important committees, e. g.. of Committee on Canals (Den- 
niston Report), Assembly document 177, 1844. 


PLATFORMS. 

(a) Resotutions of the Herkimer Mass-Convention, 1847. 
(b) Resotutions of the Utica Convention, Feb., 1848. 
(c) ResoLtutions of the Buffalo Convention, Aug., 1848. 


These are all given in Gardiner’s The Great Issue. These and similar plat- 
forms were frequently put out as campaign documents, and may be found also 
in collections of pamphlets, e. g., the Free-Soil pamphlets. 


(d) Procrerpines of the Rome Conventions, Sept., 1849. A. J. 
Rowley & Co., pub., Rome, N. Y., 1849. 


WritTincs oF PaRTICIPANTs AND CoNTEMPORARIES. 
These are subject to the usual qualifications of ability, self-interest, 


and motive in writing. Material of some value has been found 
in each of the following: 


(a) Samurx J. TitpEen: Public Writings and Speeches, ed. John 
Bigelow, N. Y., 1885. 
Valuable for a narration of the course of Tilden and the Van Burens in the 


campaign of 1848. With this exception, Tilden has little to say of his 
activities as a Barnburner. 


130 


THE BARNBURNERS 


(b) Horatio SryMour: Collected Works. 

Useful as giving the moderate Hunker position. 

(c) Wiiuiam CuLuen Bryant: Orations and Addresses; N. Y., 
1873. 

Not much of direct political bearing. 

(d) Henry B. Sranton: Random Recollections; N. Y., 1886. 


Gives vivid accounts of the personality of the early leaders, and picturesque 
anecdotes of them. 


(ec) Danrext S. Dickinson: Life and Works; N. Y., 1867. 

Of some value for the late period of the movement. 

(f) James K. Potx: Diary, 1845-49; Chicago Hist. Society col- 
lection, Chicago, 1910. 


Valuable as showing the opinion of the Barnburner “revolt” held in other 
states and at Washington. 


(g) THuRLow Weep: Autobiography, with Memoir; Boston, 
1883-84. 

Gives the Whig view of the Barnburners, with shrewd political observations. 
(h) Orners, as Horace Greeley’s Recollections of a Busy Life, 
have yielded only occasional hints. 


NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS. 


The period 1830-1850 was a time of vigorous newspaper polemics, 
in which the editorial page played a larger part than in more recent 
times, and the country weeklies both molded and reflected the 
political views of their communities. I have used all available 
papers of that period, in New York Public Library, New York State 
Library, and in the towns of their publication, as far as named 
below. I have, in every case where the question was one of fact, 
endeavored to check the statement by other publications or sources, 
and have based no conclusions on newspaper statements alone. 
Valuable are: 


(a) Avpany Dairy Arcus. 
(b) Axtspany Datty ATLAs. 


These two are to be corrected by each other. Their respective attitudes, 
against and for the Barnburners, have previously been explained. 


(c) RoucH Hewer, Albany, 1840-41. 
Advocated Radical ideas before the split came. 
(d) New Yorx Evenine Post. 


Bryant’s paper. Dubbed by the Argus in 1847 “The organ of the secret 
circular.” 


(e) Grose, Washington, D. C. 


For years the official Democratic paper at the National Capital. Distrusted 
by the Barnburners. 


(f) Grose, New York. 
Condemned by Polk as rabidly. anti-Administration. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 131 


(g) Burrato Dairy Courier. 

(h) Burrato Dairy REePuBLic. 

These two corresponded, in Buffalo, to the Argus and the Atlas at the Capital. 
(i) Axpany Eveninc JourNaL. 

Thurlow Weed’s organ. Presents an outside view. 

(j) Nuives’ Recisrer, Baltimore, Md.; especially vol. Ixxiv. 
Valuable for outside account of the national (Baltimore) convention of 1848. 


(k) Individual copies of many local papers, notably the Batavia 
Spirit of the Times, Orleans Republican, Rome Sentinel, and Jeffer- 
son Co. Democrat. 


These and many others referred to in the text, I examined in their place of 
publication or in the library collections. 


Among periodicals, I have found some material, chiefly discussion of 
local currents, in 


(a) Democratic Review; (Washington and New York); vols. 
LOR A3=2557 27; 


(b) American Wuic Review; vol. 8. 
(c) Hunt’s Mercuants’ Macazing, vols. 23-25. 


II. SECONDARY WORKS 


There has been little published that relates to this subject, espec- 
ially. Most books treat the Barnburners as a faction whose chief 
aim was to promote the interests of Martin Van Buren, and have 
almost nothing to say about their activities prior to 1848. The 
works may be classified as, first, political histories; second, other 
special histories; third, general histories; fourth, biographies; fifth, 
miscellaneous. 


1 


A. PourricaL Histories 


Jasez D. Hammonp: Political History of New York; Syracuse, 
1852. ; 


The most useful single work on the subject. By a moderate Barnburner, but 
reasonably free from bias. It stops, however, with the election of 1846. Very 
valuable for accounts of legislative caucuses, chief proceedings of the legis- 
lature, etc. 


De Atva S. ALEXANDER: A Political History of the State of New 
York; New York, 1906. 


A modern work, containing one chapter on “The Barnburners and the 
Hunkers,” besides numerous references in other chapters. 


132 


10. 


i BS 


THE BARNBURNERS 


Joun S. Jenxrns: History of Political Parties in the State of New 
York, 1789-1849; Auburn, 1849. 
By a professional writer, not so favorably thought of by his contemporaries as 
Hammond was, and lacking Hammond’s access to important sources. 
F. ByrpsaLL: History of the Locofocos; New York, 1842. 
Throws light on the general condition of state politics, then. 
Epwarp Sranwoop: A History of the Presidency, Boston, 1898; 
also, 
Presidential Elections; revised edition, Boston, 
1912. 
Sum up the general information on campaigns. 
Jesse Macy: History of Political Parties, 1846-1861; New York, 
1900. 


Gives occasional hints. 
Ransom H. GititeT: Democracy in the United States; New York, 
1868. 


Written by a staunch Democrat of that period, with a justifying motive; to 
be used cautiously. 

James K. McGuire, editor: Democratic Party of the State of New 
York; 3 vols.; New York, 1905. 

Contains a great deal of information, but largely of a tone favorable to party 


loyalty and “regularity”; apt to construe Barnburners’ actions uniformly in an 
unfavorable light. 


Francis Curtis: The Republican Party, 1854-1904; New York, 
1904. ) 
GeorcE QO. SEILHAMER, compiler: Leslie’s History of the Republi- 
can Party; New York, 1898. 


These refer to that element of the Barnburners who became Republicans. 
Curtis’ book preferably, as Seilhamer’s is a “subscription book,” of little origi- 
nal value. 


B. OtTHer SpecrAau HistTories 


Cuartes Z. Lincotn: Constitutional History of New York; 
Rochester, 1906. 


Useful in connection with the Barnburners’ plans of constitutional reform, 
culminating in the convention of 1846. 


Nose E. Wuitrorp: History of the Canal System of New York; 
supplement to the Report of the State Engineer, for 1905. 


Useful in tracing the development of the canals, which the Radicals made a 
political issue. 


A. Barton Heppurn: Artificial Waterways of the World. 


Emphasizes New York canals. 


4, 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 133 


CouNTY HISTORIES. 


Of limited usefulness, but containing accounts—usually too lauda- 
tory—of individual leaders. I have derived some local information 
from the following: 


(a) F. B. Houcu: History of Jefferson Co.; Albany, 1854. 


(b) N. S. Benron: Herkimer County and the Upper Mohawk 
Valley; Albany, 1856. 


(c) Gerorce R. Howe 11, ed.: History of Albany Co.; N. Y., 1886. 
PROCEEDINGS AND RECORDS OF HISTORICAL SOCIETIES. 

Most of the county historical societies are in a comatose condition, 
and such activity as they do display is along antiquarian, rather than 
political, lines. I have found two notable exceptions, from which 
I have derived valuable help, as follows: 

(a) Pusxications oF THE Burrato Hisroricau Society, and 
(b) Papers READ BEFORE THE HERKIMER Co. HisToricat Society. 


These contain addresses and descriptions by men who had personal knowledge 
of those times. 


C. GENERAL HIsToRIEs 


These are of little help in our topic. Allusions are found in 


I, 


Harper’s (publ.) Encyclopedia of United States History; New 
York, 1902. 

Hermann Von Hotsr: Constitutional and Political History of the 
United States, vol. II]; Chicago, 1881. 

James ScHouLer: History of the United States under the Con- 
stitution, vol. IV; New York, 1889. 


GerorcE P. Garrison: Westward Expansion, 1841-50; in Ameri- 
can Nation series, vol. XVII; New York 1906. 


D. BroGRAPHIES 


NaTIONAL CYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN BioGRAPHY. 


While not a scholarly work, this contains some references to minor leaders 
that are not otherwise so easily available. 


Epwarp M. SHEparpD: Martin Van Buren; Boston, 1888. 
Attributes Van Buren’s course to worthy and statesmanlike motives. 


Wiritiam ALLEN But ier: Martin Van Buren; Lawyer, Statesman, 
and Man; New York, 1862. 


On the whole favorable to the Barnburner leader, but not blindly. 
J. S. Jenkins: Life of Silas Wright; Auburn, 1847. 


J. D. Hammonp: Life of Silas Wright; Syracuse, 1852. 


134 


6. 


10. 


THE BARNBURNERS 


R. H. Gitutet: Life and Times of Silas Wright; Albany, 1874. 


Of the three, Hammond is the most valuable, for the same reasons that 
apply to his History. Gillet, however, gives many speeches, etc. 


H. G. Pearson: James S. Wadsworth of Genesee; New York, 1913. 
Written from scant material. 

A. C. McLaucuuin: Lewis Cass; Boston, 1891. 

Unfavorable to the Barnburners. 

Cart Scuurz: Henry Clay; 2 vols.; in American Statesmen series. 
Unfriendly. 

Other biographies of men of that time, e.g., Millard Fillmore, 
Biography of; Buffalo, 1856, have nothing of particular value. 


E. PAMPHLETs AND MIsCELLANEOUS 
O. C. Garpiner: The Great Issue; New York, 1848. 


Of great value, though a campaign document; see above, I, B, 2. 

GerorcE R. Davis: Speech on the financial policy of the Democratic 
and Whig Parties; in the Assembly, Feb. 9-11, 1843. 

Reprinted by the Argus and Troy Budget. Useful on the first dividing issue. 
Tuomas SmitH: Political Parties and Places of Meeting; New 
York Historical Society, 1893. 

Contains slight allusions. 


Civil List, State of New York; Albany, 1886. 


Referred to for lists of officers, etc. 


INDEX 


Adams, Charles Francis: presides at Buf- 
falo convention, 1848, 105; nominated 
there for vice-president, 106; attack on 
Van Buren recalled, 107 

Albany County: Democrat dissension in, 
45f; contest from, in convention of 
1846, 75; temporary fusion of factions 
in, 75, note 

Albany Regency: 7f; unpopularity of, 
transferred to “Oneida Clique,” 71; 
Radicals said to be successors of, 94 

Alexander, DeAlva S.: on Free-Soil sen- 
timent among the Radicals, 72 

Allegany County: opposition in, to Gov- 
ernor Wright, 78 and note 

Anti-Masons: 11; feared by Democrats, 
11 

Anti-Rent Party: origin of, 12; localiza- 
tion of strength, 12; not approved by 
the Barnburners, 32; opposed by Silas 
Wright, 76 and note; said to be main 
cause of his defeat, 78f; also cause of 
Seymour’s defeat, 115 and note 

Anti-slavery Movement: in New York 
State, 13. See also Free Soil 

Argus, Albany: chief Democrat news- 
paper, 20, 27, 38; silence on state bank 
scandals, 27; on Governor Wright’s 
first message, 61; on the Syracuse con- 
vention of 1847, 94 

Atlas, Albany: origin of, 41; becomes 
the organ of the Radicals, 41; ana- 
lyzes causes of Wright’s defeat, 78; 
publishes anti-slavery editorials, 88; 
gains in circulation, 88, note; chal- 
lenges the “new men” agitation, 93 


Banks, State: prosperity of, 26; inter- 
ference in state politics, 26, 28; struck 
by the Panic, 28; not allowed to issue 
small bills, 28f 

Barnburners: origin of the name, 32 and 
note, 33; when first so called, 32, 33 
and note; when the name was com- 
monly adopted, 94; begin to attract 
national attention, 99; refuse to pledge 
themselves to support national party 
nominees in 1848, 100; heard by the 
national convention, 101f; summarize 


their charges against the Hunkers, 
102; leave Baltimore, 102; form new 
state organization, 106f; office-holders 
among, punished by Polk, 108; achieve- 
ments of, in election of 1848, 108f, 
109, notes, Appendix III; sincerity of, 
111ff; rejoin the Hunkers, 115; tem- 
porarily accept the Compromise of 
1850, 115; majority of, join new Re- 
publican party, 117f; decisive contribu- 
tions of, to Republicans, 117f; net 
achievements of, 120 

Beardsley, Samuel: Conservative leader, 
20; attacks Independent Treasury plan, 
29; a source of party strife, 46 and 
note 

Benton, Nathaniel S.: on the ‘People’s 
Resolutions,” 23; on Hoffman’s influ- 
ence, 48; on the renomination of Gov- 
ernor Wright, 74 

Book Distribution Law, of 1842: pro- 
visions of, 42f; challenged by Samuel 
Young, 43 

Bouck, William C.: Conservative leader, 
20; Canal Commissioner, 20; grudg- 
ingly consents to the “Stop and Tax 
Law,” 24; elected governor, 34; rela- 
tions with Van Buren, 34ff; first mes- 
sage to the legislature, 35; Democrat 
newspapers on, 36; Michael Hoffman 
on, 37; and distribution of state pat- 
ronage, 43; opposes calling of consti- 
tutional convention, 44 and note; ap- 
proved by Democrats in legislature, 45; 
second annual message, 48; opposed 
for renomination, 57f; offers to with- 
draw in favor of Wright, 58; defeated 
for renomination, 59; in constitutional 
convention, 70; home town of, goes 
Whig, 80, note; receives a federal 
office, 81 and note 

Broome County: Democrat dissensions in, 
46 

Bryant, William Cullen: supported for 
state printer, 41; at Buffalo, 1848, 106 

Butler, Benjamin F.: member of Albany 
Regency, 7; Radical leader, 21; man- 
ager for Van Buren in 1844, 55, 57; 
recommended by Van Buren for secre- 


136 


tary of state, 63; condemns legislative 
address of 1848, 99; disapproves sec- 
ond Utica convention, 104; removed 
from office by Polk, 108 and note 


Cambreleng, Churchill C.: recommended 
for secretary of the treasury, 63; ap- 
pointed minister to Russia, 64; in con- 
stitutional convention, 70; on causes 
of Wright’s defeat, 77; chairman of 
the Herkimer convention, 96; at Buf- 
falo, 106 

Canal Board: rejects ship canal proposi- 
tion, 18; approves extension of Erie 
Canal, 18 

Canal Commission: power of, 13, con- 
trol of, sought by Hunkers, 67; see 
also Canal Board 

Canals: a leading political issue in New 
York, 14; economic effect of, 14; po- 
litical effect of, 14, 25; state policy 
toward, 14ff; great source of state rev- 
enue, 15; extension urged, 16, 17; 
extension granted unwisely, 17ff; Silas 
Wright on, 17; a ship canal urged, 18; 
effect of, on state debt, 22; Bouck on 
extension of, 36 

Cass, Lewis: candidate for Democrat nom- 
ination for president in 1844, 54f; 
New Yorkers vow vengeance on, 57, 
100; nominated for president, 103; 
defeated through loss of New York 
State, 108f 

Cassidy, William: manager of the AfZlas, 
41; ridicules Senator Foster, 65; pro- 
posed by Radicals for state printer, 
72; sued for libel by Croswell, 90 

Cayuga County: Democrat dissensions in, 
30, 45 

Columbia County: 
resolutions, 53 

Conservatives: Democrats who favored 
liberal policy of state on canals, 20; 
first leaders of, 20; how distinguished 
from the “pro-bank” Conservatives, 33. 
See also Hunkers 

Conservatives: a political faction favor- 
ing liberal use of credit by small banks, 
10; share in election of 1837, 30; 
responsibility for Democrats’ over- 
throw, 30f 

Constitution, State: demand for its re- 
vision, 43, 68; new, adopted in 1846, 
76 

Convention: at Syracuse, 1843, 46; at 


adopts conservative 


THE BARNBURNERS 


Baltimore, 1844, 55f; of 1846 to re 
vise state constitution, 70, 74; of 1846 
to nominate Democrat state ticket, 74f; 
spring, of 1847, 91; at Syracuse, 1847, 
93ff, Appendix III; at Herkimer, 1847, 
95f and notes; at Utica, Feb., 1848, 
98f; at Baltimore, 1848, 98ff; at 
Utica, June, 1848, 104f; at Buffalo, 
1848, 105f; at Utica, Sept., 1848, 106; 
at Rome, 1849, 114; at Syracuse, 1849, 
114; at Utica, 1849, 114 

Courier, Buffalo: on Governor Bouck’s 
first message, 36; declines to publish 
Causes and Consequences, 79 

Crain, William C.: Radical candidate for 
speaker, 61; introduces bill for con- 
stitutional convention, 69; elected 
speaker, 71; chairman of judicial nom- 
inating convention, 91; on a decision 
of the Syracuse convention, 94, note 

Croswell, Edwin: member of Albany Re- 
gency, 7; Conservative leader, 20; edi- 
tor of the Argus, 20; characteristics 
of, 38; influence of, 38; and canal 
extension, 39; reélected state printer, 
41; resents attacks, 42; grows cool 
towards Silas Wright, 42; evades loss 
of the state printing, 72f; suit of, 
against William Cassidy, 90f; con- 
demned by Barnburners as no better 
than a Whig, 97, note 


Democrat Party: predominant in New 
York, 7; weakened by Loco-focos, 11f; 
minor causes of dissension in, 31f; 
unforeseen success in 1843, 46; dis- 
sension chiefly on points of principle, 
47; growing dissension in, 50f, 90; 
factionalism in legislature of 1845, 
61f; decline of discipline in, 81f; dis- 
rupted in 1848, 107, 109; reunited, 
113; defeat in 1849, causes of, 115 
and note 

Denniston, Robert: report to the legis- 
lature on Bouck’s canal proposals, 48f, 
48 note; fairness as chairman of Sen- 
atorial caucus, 66 

Dickinson, Daniel S.: defends the Book 
Distribution Law, 43; appointed United 
State senator ad interim, 65; nomi- 
nated by legislative caucus to succeed 
himself, 66 and Appendix I; votes 
against Wilmot Proviso, 85, note 

Dix, John A.: named by the Radicals for 
United States senator, 65; nominated 


INDEX 


by the legislative caucus, 66, and Ap- 
pendix I; accepted by President Polk 
as the representative of the Radicals, 
81; votes for Wilmot Proviso, 85, 
note; praised by Utica convention, 99; 
nominated for governor by Barn- 
burners, 107; runs ahead of Van Bu- 
ren, but is defeated, 109 

Dorr Rebellion in Rhode Island: alleged 
connection of, with the Barnburners, 


32 


Equal Rights Party: known as Loco-focos, 
11; weakened Democrats, 12 
Erie Canal: enlarged, 18, 19 


Farmers: in New York State legislature, 
34 

Federalist Party: unpopularity in New 
York, 9 

Field, David Dudley: offers resolutions 
approving Wilmot Proviso, 93f; pre- 
sents resolutions in Herkimer Conven- 
tion, 96; at Buffalo, 1848, 106; joins 
new Republican party, 113 

Flagg, Azariah C.: member of Albany 
Regency, 7; on the election of 1837, 
10 and note; comptroller, 15; reélect- 
ed, 31; originates policy on canals, 
15f; chief Radical leader, 20; influ- 
ence on Silas Wright, 20f; reasons 
given for his unpopularity, 31; on 
Croswell, 40; works for party har- 
mony, 45; suspicious of Hunkers, 50; 
recommended for secretary of treasury, 
63; declines to retire from comptrol- 
lership, 91; diminishing popularity of, 
92; defeated for renomination, 94; 
disapproves Herkimer convention, 95; 
disapproves second Utica convention, 
104; declines to leave the Democrat 
party, 117 

Flanders, Francis D.: although a Radical, 
votes against Flagg, 94, note; on the 
Herkimer convention, 95 

Foster, Henry A.: Conservative leader, 
20; opposes the “Stop and Tax Law,” 
24; supports Croswell for state printer, 
40; gets patronage from Governor 
Bouck, 43; appointed by Bouck United 
States senator ad interim, 65; obliged 
to withdraw, owing to Radical attacks, 
65 

Free-Soil Movement: appeals to Radicals, 
72, 88; approved by Herkimer conven- 


137 


tion, 96; controls Buffalo convention, 
105f; decisive in defeating Cass, 107; 
uncertainty as to future of, 110 

French, James M.: manager of the Afélas, 
41, 42; connection with the Van Bu- 
rens, 42 


Gallatin, Albert: on the “Stop and Tax 
Law,” 25 

Gardiner, Addison: nominated on ticket 
with Wright, 59; renominated and 
reélected, 75f; resigns to enter Court 
of Appeals, 91 

Gates, Seth: nominated for lieutenant- 
governor by the Barnburners, 107 

Granger, Francis: Whig leader, 11; ad- 
vocates canal extension, 17 

Greeley, Horace: Whig leader, 11; ‘re- 
mark on the Hunkers and Barnburners, 


33 


Hammit Letter of Martin Van Buren, 
54 

Hammond, Jabez D.: on building of 
canals, 17; on the political effect of 
the “Stop and Tax Law,” 24f; on the 
opposition to Flagg, 31 

Herkimer County: said to be the home 
of the ‘People’s Resolutions,” 23; 
Hunkers weak in, 45; Hunkers in, 
bolt the ticket, 82 

Hoffman, Michael: Radical leader, 21; 
puts through the “Stop and Tax Law,” 
24; on Bouck’s nomination for gov- 
ernor, 34; in national House of Rep- 
resentatives, 36; ability as a debater, 
37; on Bouck’s first message, 37; 
urges new constitution, 44; protests 
against Hunker disloyalty, 45; on 
causes of Democrat dissension, 47; de- 
feated for speaker of the Assembly, 
48; great influence in the legislature, 
48 and note; on Van Buren, 53 and 
note; made Naval Officer of Port of 
New York, 64; frames financial section 
of new state constitution, 70 and note; 
death, 108 

Hungerford, Orville: defeated for reélec- 
tion to Congress, by Radical votes, 82; 
ridiculed for posing as a “new man,” 
92; nominated for comptroller, 94 

Hunkers, a political faction: origin of 
the name, 9, 33 and note; oppose call- 
ing of constitutional convention, 44 
and note, 69; in senatorial nominating 


138 


caucus of 1845, 66f; secure three state 
offices, 67; attempt to extend canal 
work thwarted by Governor Wright’s 
veto, 68; pledge support to all of Polk’s 
policies, 72; blamed for Wright’s de- 
feat, 77ff; give their views about 
Wright’s defeat, 79; capture party or- 
ganization in 1847, 94, 96, 98; pledge 
themselves to support national party 
nominees in. 1848, 101; favored by 
Baltimore convention, 103; outvoted 
in New York by the Barnburners, 
108f, 109 note 


Jackson, Andrew: center of Whig attack, 
8; supported by Democrats of New 
York, 26; attacked by Conservatives, 
28 

Jefferson, Thomas: cited as authority for 
Flagg’s financial policy, 16 


Kemble, Congressman Gouverneur: on 
causes of Wright’s defeat, 80f 

King, Preston: votes against canal loan, 
22; works for party harmony, 45; 
Wright’s lieutenant, 56 and note; as- 
sailed by the Hunkers for his Free- 
Soil sentiments, 72; speaks for the 
“Three Million Bill,” 84f; at Buffalo 
convention, 106; joins new Republican 


party, 113 


Legislature, State, of New York: power 
of election of state officials, 31; con- 
test in, in 1842, 31; address of Demo- 
crat members of, in 1843, 45; address 
of Democrat members of, in 1844, 51; 
of 1845, 61; no address of Democrat 
members of, in 1845, 69f; address of 
Barnburner members of, in 1848, 99 

Loco-focos: see Equal Rights Party 

Loomis, Arphaxed: Radical leader, 21; 
introduces the “People’s Resolutions,” 
23; refuses to leave the Democrat 
party, 112f 


Marcy, William L.: member of Albany Re- 
gency, 7; characteristics, 9; a Hunker, 
9, 22; comptroller of New York, 15; 
opposes suspension of direct tax, 15; 
approves extension of canals, 19, 22; 
on speculation, 27; reélected governor, 
28; refuses to urge state bank relief, 
29; on state printership fight, 41; 
chairman of state convention of 1843, 


THE BARNBURNERS 


46; made secretary of war, 63f; on 
prospects of Wright’s reélection, 75; 
on causes of Wright’s defeat, 77f 


Native American Party: strength in New 
York Citys) 12 

“New Men”: slogan of the Hunkers, 
91ff; supported by many Democrat 
papers, 92f, and Appendix II 

New York City: Equal Rights party in, 
11; Native American party in, 12; 
Wright loses heavily in, 77; contest 
from, in Syracuse convention of 1847, 


93 


Oneida County: retaliates on Wright for 
the rejection of Foster, 65, 78, 80; 
charged with party disloyalty, 71; tem- 
porary fusion of factions in, 75, note 

Onondaga County: controlled by Hunkers, 
30; deplores party dissensions, 87 

O’Conor, Charles: nominated for lieu- 
tenant-governor by the Hunkers, 107; 
offers resolutions approving the Com- 
promise of 1850, 115 

O’Reilly, Henry: on the “People’s Reso- 
lutions,” 23 

Parties: political, in New York about 
1830, 7-13 

Peckham, Rufus W.: attorney for Cros- 
well in libel suit, 90 

“People’s Resolutions’: introduced in 
1841, 23; uncertainty as to author- 
ship, 23; contents of, 23; rejected, 23 
and note; form basis of the “Stop and 
Tax Law,” 24 

Polk, James K.: friend of. Van Buren, 
56; admirer of Silas Wright, 62 and 
note; disclaims share in rejection of 
Van Buren, 62; offers Wright the 
Treasury portfolio, 62; seeks Van Bu- 
ren’s advice on appointments, 63; dis- 
regards Van Buren’s recommendations, 
63f; names some Radicals to minor 
offices, 64 and note; blames Hunkers 
for Wright’s defeat, 80; complains of 
Radical congressmen, 81; removes ob- 
jectionable office-holders, 107f 

Post, New York Evening: adheres to the 
Radicals, 41; prints the “Secret Cir- 
cular” of 1844, 86 

Printer, State: office of, chosen by legis- 
lature, 38; a monopoly of Croswell, 
38; sought by Van Dyck, 39ff; results 


INDEX 


of the struggle, 41f; abolished, to save 
Croswell’s status, 73 
Proviso, Wilmot: see Wilmot Proviso 


Radicals: Democrats who. favored strict 
policy of state on canals, 20; first lead- 
ers of, 20f; object to Bouck’s appoint- 
ments, 43; demand checks on the leg- 
islature, 44; favor calling constitu- 
tional convention, 44 and note; sus- 
picious of Van Buren at first, 53; 
offended by Polk’s distribution of pat- 
ronage, 65; address to the people at 
close of session of 1845, 70; gains in 
election of 1845, 70f; orthodox on 
most national party issues, 89; see also 
Barnburners 

Randall, Henry S.: on the future of the 
Free-Soilers, 110; quarrel with John 
Van Buren, 114; elected secretary of 

_ state, 116 

Regency: see Albany Regency, 7 

Republican Party: formed, 117; absorbs 
a majority of the Barnburners, 1171; 
success of, due to the Barnburners, 
117f 

Ruggles, Samuel B.: report of, on canals, 


21 


St. Lawrence County: expresses confidence 
in Governor Bouck, 46; a stronghold 
of Radicalism,- 118 

Schenectady County: Democrat dissensions 
in, 45 

“Secret Circular” of 1844: said to show 
disloyalty of Radicals, 85 and note, 86 

Seward, William H.: elected governor, 
10; reélected, 10; message on canals, 
22 and note 

Seymour, Horatio: report to the legisla- 
ture on Bouck’s canal proposals, 49f; 
his canal bill, provisions of, 50; his 
canal bill passed, 50 and note; begin- 
ming of his influence, 50; elected 
speaker of the assembly, 61; accepts 
Compromise of 1850, 113; defeated 
for governor, 115 

Standard, . Onondaga: a 
newspaper, 30 

Stanton, Henry B.: on Michael Hoffman, 
37; on decision of Baltimore conven- 
tion of 1848, 102; on affiliation of 
Barnburners with Republican party, 117 

“Stop and Tax Law”: contents of, 24; 
importance of, 24, 25; cause of party 


Conservative 


139 


dissension, 24f; improves state finances, 
25 

Strong, Congressman Selah B.: speaks 
against the “Three Million Bill,” 85; 
analyzes the “Secret Circular” of 1844, 
$5f 


Talcott, Samuel A.: member of Albany 
Regency, 7 

Tallmadge, Nathaniel P.: Conservative 
leader, 29; attitude in election of 
1837, 30; reélected United States sen- 
ator by Whig votes, 30; protests he is 
not a Whig, 30; appointed by Tyler 
governor of Wisconsin, 65 

Throop, Enos T.: elected governor, 9; 
on the election of 1837, 30 

Tilden, Samuel J.: defends Independent 
Treasury, 29; blames Hunkers for 
Wright’s defeat, 77; co-author of leg- 
islative address of 1848, 99; at Buf- 
falo, 1848, 106; accepts Compromise 
of 1850, 113 

Two-thirds rule in Democrat conven- 
tions: origin of, 55; use of, against 
Van Buren, 55 and note; criticized as 
undemocratic, 57 

Tyler, John: unpopularity in New York, 
52 and note 


Van Buren, John: Radical leader, 21; 
becomes connected with the Azlas, 42; 
attorney for Cassidy in libel suit, 90; 
blamed for contributing to Wright’s 
defeat, 90f; author of Herkimer con- 
vention’s platform, 96; author of Utica 
convention’s address, 98f; at Buffalo, 
1848, 106; his motives in 1848, 112; 

opportunity lost by, 112; quarrel with 
Randall, 114; urges party harmony in 
1852, 116 

Van Buren, Martin: member of Albany 
Regency, 7; settles his feud with De 
Witt Clinton, 14; brings out Independ- 
ent Treasury plan, 29; first connection 
with the Radicals, 35; praises the 
“Stop and Tax Law,” 36; candidate 
for renomination in 1844 for the pres- 
idency, 51ff; opposition to, in New 
York, 52 and note, 53; opposition to, 
in other states, 54; Hammit letter of, 
54; plan to defeat, 54f; defeated for 
renomination, 55; praised by Balti- 
more convention of 1844, 56; abandons 
hope of national leadership, 59, 88 


Wadsworth, James S.: 


140 


and note; advises Polk as to cabinet 
appointments, 63 and note; chagrined 
at Polk’s appointments, 64; shows 
friendliness to Wilmot Proviso, 87; 
disapproves Herkimer convention, 95; 
declares definitely for Free Soil, 99; 
prescribes course to be followed by 
Barnburners at Baltimore, 1848, 100f; 
urged to lead third party, 103; nomi- 
nated for president at Utica, 104; at 
Buffalo, 106 and note; sets a prece- 
dent as independent candidate, 104f; 
arguments against, in 1848, 105; ac- 
cepted by the Free-Soilers, 107; achieve- 
ments of, in election of 1848, 108f; 
later views of, on slavery, 112; sin- 
cerity of, 112, 113 and note; urges 
party unity in 1852, 116 


vows vengeance 
on Lewis Cass, 57; threatens “mur- 
derers” of Governor Wright, 83; at 
Buffalo, 106; joins new Republican 
party, 113 


Weed, Thurlow: chief Whig organizer, 


10f; influence of, 38 


Whig Party: formation, 8; principles, 9; 


charged with Federalism, 9; caters to 
the “Conservatives,” 9f; victory in 
1837, 10, 29, note; victory in 1838, 
10; decline in 1840, 10; advocates 
liberal canal financing, 21; blames un- 
fortunate results on Democrats, 19; 
manoeuvers successfully in legislature 
of 1843, 44; carries the state, 76; 
wins election of 1848, 108f, and Ap- 
pendix III 

Whitford, Noble E.: on enlargement of 
Erie Canal, 19 


Wilmot Proviso: disturbs the Demacrat 


party, 84, 86f; King’s stand on, ap- 
proved by the legislature, 86 and note; 
subject of debate in Syracuse conven- 
tion of 1847, 93f; condemned by 
Flanders, 95 


Wright, John C.: demands indorsement 


of Bouck, 45; activity in Senatorial 
caucus of 1845, 66; charged with com- 
plicity in Silas Wright’s defeat, 78 


Wright, Silas: member of Albany Re- 


gency, 73; report on canals, 17; close 


THE BARNBURNERS 


relations with Flagg, 20f, 60 and note; 
on the “Stop and Tax Law,” 25; on 
Bouck’s first message, 36; on Cros- 
well’s tactics, 42 and note, 46; de- 
clines support for. nomination for 
presidency, 55; loyalty of, to Van Bu- 
ren, 56f; refuses nomination for vice- 
presidency, 57; proposed for governor 
in place of Bouck, 57f; unwilling to 
take the governorship, 58; yields in 
the interest of party harmony, 58f; 
nominated and elected governor, 59 
and note; advantages and disadvan- 
tages of, in governorship, 60; first an- 
nual message, 60f; offered secretary- 
ship of the treasury, 62; reasons for 
declining the Treasury offer, 62; atti- 
tude of, toward Polk, 62f, 63 note; 
attitude on senatorial election of 1845, 
66 and note; vetoes canal bill spon- 
sored by the Hunkers, 68; signs bill 
for constitutional convention, 69; ob- 
jections to his renomination, 74f; re- 
nominated for governor, 74 and note; 
predicts his own defeat, 76; defeated 
for reélection, 76; gives his views as 
to the causes of defeat, 77; may have 
shared in writing Atlas articles, 78, 
82; death of, 83; remarkable popular- 
ity of, 83 and note 


Young, John: Whig leader, 11, 68; com- 


pels calling of constitutional conven- 
tion, 69; nominated and elected gov- 
ernor, 75f; pardons convicted Anti- 
Renters, 76, note 


Young, Samuel: proposes action against 


bank speculators, 26f; relations of, 
with Flagg, 27; and the name “Barn- 
Burners,” 33; attacks the Book Distri- 
bution Law, 43; consents to indorse- 
ment of Governor Bouck, 46; said to 
have been offered Whig support for 
election to United States senate but 
declined, 67; defeated by the Hunkers 
for reélection as secretary of state, 67; 
assailed by the Hunkers, 72; speech 
in City Hall Park, New York, 103f; 
chairman of Second Utica convention, 


104; at Buffalo, 1848, 106 








ee us 





} fe, ‘ 
‘ ANTES f ' Sid 3 ere 
ei Why Ht Pa ial tae 


ne Seeemnecisnneeren a neketes a ae 
eee SS EF Er nae AN TR 
OS STATE — 


a 
CR A I TS ENT Sere naan tes omeentth 
A AR ee ee aie TS TTA RE SST SSeS ne SSS 
aE cane ese ee 


Seen a 


a nn 
A 





